Lhuiller v British Airways

8/3/2019 Lhuiller v British Airways

1/5

Arianne Joyce E. PascualTRANSPORTATION LAW

EDNA DIAGO LHULLIER vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS[GR No. 171547; 15 March 2010]

Del Castillo, J.:Facts:Petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier filed a Complaint2 for damages againstrespondent British Airways alleging that she took respondents flight 548from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy. Once on board, she allegedlyrequested Julian Halliday (Halliday), one of the respondents flightattendants, to assist her in placing her hand-carried luggage in theoverhead bin. However, Halliday allegedly refused to help and assist her.

Petitioner further alleged that when the plane was about to land in Rome,Italy, another flight attendant, Nickolas Kerrigan (Kerrigan), singled her

out from among all the passengers in the business class section to lectureon plane safety. Affronted, petitioner assured Kerrigan that she knew theplanes safety regulations being a frequent traveler. Thereupon, Kerriganallegedly thrust his face a mere few centimeters away from that of thepetitioner and menacingly told her that "We dont like your attitude."

Petitioner complained to respondents ground manager and demanded anapology. However, the latter declared that the flight stewards were "onlydoing their job."

Thus, petitioner filed the complaint for damages, praying that respondentbe ordered to pay P5 million as moral damages, P2 million as nominaldamages, P1 million as exemplary damages, P300,000.00 as attorneysfees, P200,000.00 as litigation expenses, and cost of the suit.

Issue: Whether Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over a tortuousconduct committed against a Filipino citizen and resident by airlinepersonnel of a foreign carrier travelling beyond the territorial limit of anyforeign country?

Held:No. Petitioner argues that her cause of action arose not from the contractof carriage, but from the tortious conduct committed by airline personnel

of respondent in violation of the provisions of the Civil Code on HumanRelations. Since her cause of action was not predicated on the contract ofcarriage, petitioner asserts that she has the option to pursue this case inthis jurisdiction pursuant to Philippine law. In contrast, respondentmaintains that petitioners claim for damages fell within the ambit ofArticle 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. As such, the same can only befiled before the courts of London, United Kingdom or Rome, Italy.

The Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country. Itis settled that the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law inthis country.

The Convention is thus a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by thePhilippine government and, as such, has the force and effect of law in this
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_171092_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_171092_2010.html#fnt2


2/5

country.13

The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel, where the allegedtortious conduct occurred, was between the United Kingdom and Italy,which are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention.Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff may bring theaction for damages before 1. the court where the carrier is domiciled;2. the court where the carrier has its principal place of business;3. the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contracthas been made; or4. the court of the place of destination.

In this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a British corporationdomiciled in London, United Kingdom with London as its principal place ofbusiness. Hence, under the first and second jurisdictional rules, thepetitioner may bring her case before the courts of London in the United

Kingdom. In the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by boththe petitioner and respondent, it appears that the ticket was issued inRome, Italy.

Consequently, under the third jurisdictional rule, the petitioner has theoption to bring her case before the courts of Rome in Italy. Finally, boththe petitioner and respondent aver that the place of destination is Rome,Italy, which is properly designated given the routing presented in the saidpassenger ticket and baggage check. Accordingly, petitioner may bringher action before the courts of Rome, Italy. We thus find that the RTC ofMakati correctly ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over the case filedby the petitioner.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_171092_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_171092_2010.html#fnt13


3/5


BRITISH AIRWAYS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOP MAHTANI ANDPHILIPPINE AIRLINES

[G.R. No. 121824; 29 January 1998]Romero, J.:

Facts:On April 6, 1989, Mahtani decided to visit his relative in Bombay,

India. In anticipation of his visit, he obtained the services of a certain Mr.Gemar to prepare his travel plan. Since british Airways had no ticketflights from Manila to Bombay, Maktani had to take a connecting flight toBombay on board British Airways.

Prior to his departure, Maktani checked in the PAL counter in Manila

his two pieces of luggage containing his clothing and personal effects,confident that upon reaching Hong Kong, the same would be transferredto the BA flight bound for Bombay. Unfortunately, when Maktani arrived inBombay, he discovered that his luggage was missing and that uponinquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might havebeen diverted to London. After plaintiff waiting for his luggage for oneweek, BA finally advised him to file a claim accomplishing the property.

Issue: Whether or not defendant BA is liable for compulsory damagesand attorneys fee, as well as the dismissal of its third party complaintagainst PAL.

Held:The contract of transportation was exclusively between Maktani and

BA. The latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hong Kong log of theformers journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent. Conditions ofcontacts was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay.

The Court of Appeals should have been cognizant of the well-settledrule that an agent is also responsible for any negligence in theperformance of its function and is liable for damages which the principalmay suffer by reason of its negligent act. Since the instant petition wasbased on breach of contract of carriage, Maktani can only sue BA and not

PAL, since the latter was not a party in the contract.


4/5


PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. HON. ADRIANO SAVILLO andSIMPLICIO GRIO

[GR No. 149547; July 4, 2008]Chico-Nazario, J.:

FACTS:Private respondent was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN SeniorsAnnual Golf Tournament held in Jakarta, Indonesia. He and severalcompanions decided to purchase their respective passenger tickets fromPAL with the following points of passage: MANILA-SINGAPORE-JAKARTA-SINGAPORE-MANILA. Private respondent and his companions were madeto understand by PAL that its plane would take them from Manila toSingapore, while Singapore Airlines would take them from Singapore to

Jakarta.

The private respondent and his companions took the PAL flight toSingapore and arrived and upon their arrival, they proceeded to theSingapore Airlines office to check-in for their flight to Jakarta that sameevening. However, Singapore Airlines rejected the tickets of privaterespondent and his group because they were not endorsed by PAL.Singapore Airlines averred that if they honor the tickets without PALsendorsement, there is a possibility that PAL would not pay SingaporeAirlines for their passage.

Due to this, private respondent and his companions were forced to

purchase tickets from Garuda Airlines and board its last flight bound forJakarta. When they arrived in Jakarta, the party who was supposed to fetchthem from the airport had already left and they had to arrange for theirtransportation to the hotel at a very late hour. After the series of nerve-wracking experiences, private respondent became ill and was unable toparticipate in the tournament.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case at bar is covered by the WarsawConvention.

HELD: No, the case at bar is not within the scope of the Warsaw

Convention. Warsaw Convention applies to all internationaltransportation of persons, baggage or goods performed by any aircraft forhire. It seeks to accommodate or balance the interests of passengersseeking recovery for personal injuries and the interests of air carriersseeking to limit potential liability. Article 19 of the Warsaw Conventionprovides for liability on the part of a carrier for damages occasioned bydelay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods.

However, the Supreme Court finds that the present case is substantiallysimilar to cases in which the damages sought were considered to beoutside the coverage of the Warsaw Convention, since it does notexclusively regulate the relationship between passenger and carrier on

an international flight.


5/5

This is due to the fact that the purported negligence on the part of PAL didnot occur during the performance of the contract of carriage but daysbefore the scheduled flight.

Documents

Lhuiller v British Airways