G.R. Nos. 116044-45 – 384 Phil. 227 – 327 SCRA 482 – Civil Law – Conflict of Laws – Contract of Carriage – Warsaw Convention – Situs of Actions
Democrito Mendoza purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila connecting tickets from Manila-Singapore-Athens-Larnaca-Rome-Turin-Zurich-Geneva-Copenhagen-New York. When Mendoza was in Geneva, he decided to forego his trip to Copenhagen and go straight to New York. But since his connecting ticket does not allow him to fly directly from Geneva to New York, he had to look for an airline that will accept an exchange of ticket. American Airlines (AA) agreed to issue to Mendoza a one way ticket from Geneva to New York in exchange of the unused portion of Mendoza’s connecting ticket (Geneva-Copenhagen-NY). AA then claimed from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) the value of the unused portion of Mendoza’s connecting ticket.
Unfortunately, Mendoza, while at Geneva Airport, was not treated well by AA’s employees. The ill-treatment caused him embarrassment so once he got home to the Philippines, he sued AA for damages. AA moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that under the Warsaw Convention, action for damages arising from a contract of carriage shall be filed in any of the following: 1) domicile of the airlines, 2) principal business address of the airlines, 3) where the contract was made, or 4) place of destination. AA argued that based on the Convention, AA may only be sued in America which is the domicile and principal business address of AA, OR in Geneva where the contract of carriage between AA and Mendoza occurred, OR in New York, Mendoza’s place of destination.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippines has jurisdiction over the action for damages.
HELD: Yes. AA and Singapore Airlines are members of the IATA. As members, they may act as agents of each other in issuing tickets to individuals who may need their services. In this case, AA, by agreeing to exchange tickets to allow Mendoza to travel directly from Geneva to New York acted as an agent of Singapore Airlines. The contract of carriage between Mendoza and Singapore Airlines was continued by AA as an agent of Singapore Airlines. By constituting itself as an agent of the principal carrier (Singapore Airtlines) the AA’s undertaking should be taken as part of a single operation under the contract of carriage executed by Mendoza and Singapore Airlines in Manila. The issuance of a new one-way ticket in Geneva by AA to Mendoza did not create a new contract of carriage. It was a continuation of the contract of carriage executed by Singapore Airlines and Mendoza in Manila. Hence, applying the Warsaw Convention, Mendoza may sue AA in the Philippines as it is where the contract of carriage was made.
