air transportation law

7/24/2019 Air Transportation Law

1/12

AIR TRANSPORTATIONby: Calibo, Christine Joy

Del Mundo Maria Fe

A. INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION

The Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, commonly known asthe Warsaw Convention, is an international convention which regulates liability for international carriage of persons,luggage, or goods performed by aircraft for reward.

Originally signed in 1! in Warsaw "hence the name#, it was amended in 1$$ at The %ague, &etherlands, and in1'1 in (uatemala City, (uatemala.

1. Constitutionality

(Santos III v. Northwest)

This case involves the Proper interpretation of Article 28!" of the #arsa$ Convention, readin% as follo$s:

Art& 28& !" An action for da'a%e 'ust be brou%ht at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the (i%h Contractin%

Parties, either before the court of the do'icile of the carrier or of his principal place of business, or $here he has a place of

business throu%h $hich the contract has been 'ade, or before the court at the place of destination&

The petitioner clai's that the lo$er court erred in not rulin% that Article 28!" of the #arsa$ Convention violates the constitutional

%uarantees of due process and e)ual protection&

The )epublic of the *hilippines is a party to the Convention for the Unification of Certain )ules )elating to +nternationalTransportation by ir, otherwise known as the Warsaw Convention. +t took effect on -ebruary 1, 1. The Convention wasconcurred in by the /enate, through its )esolution &o. 1, on 0ay 1, 1$2. The *hilippine instrument of accession was signed by*resident 3lpidio 4uirino on October 1, 1$2, and was deposited with the *olish government on &ovember , 1$2. The Conventionbecame applicable to the *hilippines on -ebruary , 1$1. On /eptember !, 1$$, *resident )amon 0agsaysay issued *roclamation&o. !21, declaring our formal adherence thereto. 5to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed andfulfilled in good faith by the )epublic of the *hilippines and the citi6ens thereof.5 $

The Convention is thus a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the *hilippine government and, as such, has the force

and effect of law in this country.

+t is well7settled that courts will assume 8urisdiction over a constitutional 9uestion only if it is shown that the essentialre9uisites of a 8udicial in9uiry into such a 9uestion are first satisfied. Courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional 9uestion.This attitude is based on the doctrine of separation of powers, which en8oins upon the departments of the government a becomingrespect for each other:s acts.

The treaty which is the sub8ect matter of this petition was a 8oint legislative7e;ecutive act. The presumption is that it was firstcarefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was adopted and given the force of law in this country.

a.When Ali!a"le

Arti!le 1(1)

This Convention applies to all international carriageof persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward.

+t applies e9ually to fortuitious carriage by aircraft performed by an air transportation enterprise.

#. Lia"ilities un$er the Convention

Arti!le 1%

The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodilyin8ury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board theaircraftor in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

1


2/12

Arti!le 1&

1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registeredluggage or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.!. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph comprises the period during which theluggage or goods are in charge of the carrier, whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of alanding outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever.. The period of the carriage by air does not e;tend to any carriage by land, by sea or by river performed outside anaerodrome. +f, however, such a carriage takes place in the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for thepurpose of loading, delivery or transshipment,any damage is presumed, sub8ect to proof to the contrary, to have

been the result of an event which took place during the carriage by air.

Arti!le 1'

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delayin the carriage by air of passengers, luggage or goods.

(Northwest v. Cuen!a)

*etitioner argues that pursuant to those provisions, an air 5carrier is liable only5 in the event of death of a passenger orin8ury suffered by him, or of destruction or loss of, or damage to any checked baggage or any goods, or of delay in thetransportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods. This pretense is not borne out by the language of said rticles. The samemerely declare the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. &either saidprovisions nor others in the aforementioned Convention regulate or e;clude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier.Under petitioner:s theory, an air carrier would be e;empt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, inbad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd.

(Alitalia v. IAC)

Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is made liable for damages forelay in the transportation by air of passengers, luggage or goods.

The convention however denies to the carrier availment of the provisions which e;clude or limit his liability, if the damage iscaused by his wilful misconduct, or by such default on his part as is considered to be e9uivalent to wilful misconduct. The Conventiondoes not thus operate as an e;clusive enumeration of the instances of an airline:s liability, or as an absolute limit of the e;tent of that

liability. +t should be deemed a limit of liability only in those cases where the cause of the death or in8ury to person, or destruction,loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness,or otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise nospecial or e;traordinary form of resulting in8ury.

+n the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be ascribed to the employees of petitioner airline= and >r.*ablo:s luggage was eventually returned to her, belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable damage. The fact is, nevertheless, thatsome species of in8ury was caused to >r. *ablo because petitioner ?+T?+ misplaced her baggage and failed to deliver it to her atthe time appointed 7 a breach of its contract of carriage. Certainly, the compensation for the in8ury suffered by >r. *ablo cannot underthe circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the Warsaw Convention for delay in the transport of baggage.

. Liitations on Lia"ilities

Arti!le ##

1. +n the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 1!$,222 francs.Where, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, damages may be awarded in the form ofperiodical payments, the e9uivalent capital value of the said payments shall not e;ceed 1!$,222 francs. &evertheless,by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.!. +n the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of !$2 francs perkilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a specialdeclaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so re9uires. +n that case the carrierwill be liable to pay a sum not e;ceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the actualvalue to the consignor at delivery.

!


3/12

. s regards ob8ects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to $,222 francsper passenger.@. The sums mentioned above shall be deemed to refer to the -rench franc consisting of $ A milligrams gold ofmillesimal fineness 22. These sums may be converted into any national currency in round figures.

( Pan A v. IAC)

A petition $as filed by an international air carrier see*in% to li'it its liability for lost ba%%a%e of its passen%er&

+n the absence of a showing that petitioner:s attention was called to the special circumstances re9uiring prompt delivery of

private respondent *angan:s luggages, petitioner cannot be held liable for the cancellation of private respondents: contracts "thee;hibition of two of the films# as it could not have foreseen such an eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit.

The evidence reveals that the pro;imate cause of the cancellation of the contracts was private respondent *angan:s failure todeliver the promotional and advertising materials on the dates agreed upon. -or this petitioner cannot be held liable. *rivaterespondent *angan had not declared the value of the two luggages he had checked in and paid additional charges. &either waspetitioner privy to respondents: contracts nor was its attention called to the condition therein re9uiring delivery of the promotional andadvertising materials on or before a certain date.

With the Court:s holding that petitioner:s liability is limited to the amount stated in the ticket, the award of attorney:s fees,which is grounded on the alleged un8ustified refusal of petitioner to satisfy private respondent:s 8ust and valid claim, loses support andmust be set aside.

*. When Liitations +navaila"le

Arti!le

1. -or the carriage of passengers the carrier must deliver a passenger ticket which shall contain the followingparticulars


4/12

+ndeed, private respondent had shown that the alleged switch of planes from a ?ockheed 1211 to a smaller oeing '2' wasbecause there were only 1D confirmed economy class passengers who could very well be accommodated in the smaller plane and notbecause of maintenance problems.

*etitioner sacrificed the comfort of its first class passengers including private respondent Einluan for the sake of economy./uch inattention and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to theirconvenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages. 0ore so in this case where instead ofcourteously informing private respondent of his being downgraded under the circumstances, he was angrily rebuffed by an employeeof petitioner.

t the time of this unfortunate incident, the private respondent was a practicing lawyer, a senior partner of a big law firm in0anila. %e was a director of several companies and was active in civic and social organi6ations in the *hilippines. Considering thecircumstances of this case and the social standing of private respondent in the community, he is entitled to the award of moral ande;emplary damages. %owever, the moral damages should be reduced to *22,222.22, and the e;emplary damages should be reducedto *!22,222.22. This award should be reasonably sufficient to indemnify private respondent for the humiliation and embarrassmentthat he suffered and to serve as an e;ample to discourage the repetition of similar oppressive and discriminatory acts.

,. Con$itions on Iosition o- Lia"ility

Arti!le #

1.Receipt by the person entitled to delivery of luggage or goodswithout complaint is ria -a!ie evi$en!ethat the samehave been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of carriage.!. +n the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the

damage, and, at the latest, within three days from the date of receipt in the case of luggage and seven days from thedate of receipt in the case of goods . +n the case of delay the complaint must be made at the latest within fourteen daysfrom the date on which the luggage or goods have been placed at his disposal.. 3very complaint must be made in writingupon the document of carriage or by separate notice in writing despatchedwithin the times aforesaid.@. -ailing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraudon his part.

Arti!le #&

1. n action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the %ighContracting *arties, either before the Court having jurisdiction where the carrier is ordinarily resident, or has hisprincipal place of business, or has an establishment by which the contract has been made or before the Courthaving jurisdiction at the place of destination.

!. 4uestions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the Court seised of the case.

Arti!le #'

1. The right to damages shall be e;tinguished if an action is not brought within two years, reckoned from the date ofarrival at the destination, orfrom the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, orfrom the date on which thecarriage stopped.!. The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seised of the case.

( Luna v. CA)

-rom the facts, it appears that private respondent &orthwest irlines indeed failed to deliver petitioners: baggage at thedesignated time and place. -or this, all that respondent carrier could say was that 5FwGe e;erted all efforts to comply with thiscondition of the contract.5 %ence, it is evident that petitioners suffered some special specie of in8ury for which they should rightly becompensated. *rivate respondent cannot be allowed to escape liability by seeking refuge in the argument that the trial courts: orders

have attained finality due to petitioners failure to move for reconsideration or to file a timely appeal therefrom. Technicalities shouldbe disregarded if only to render to the respective parties that which is their due. Thus, although We have said that certioraricannot bea substitute for a lapsed appeal, We have, time and again, likewise held that where a rigid application of that rule will result in amanifest failure or miscarriage of 8ustice, the rule may be rela;ed. %ence, considering the broader and primordial interests of 8usticeparticularly when there is grave abuse of discretion, thus impelling occasional departure from the general rule that the e;traordinarywrit of certioraricannot substitute for a lost appeal, respondent appellate court may legally entertain the special civil actionfor certiorari.

*reviously, We ruled that the Warsaw Convention was a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the *hilippinegovernment= conse9uently, it has the force and effect of law in this country. ut, in the same token, We are also aware o

@


5/12

8urisprudence that the Warsaw Convention does not operate as an e;clusive enumeration of the instances for declaring an airline liablefor breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the e;tent of that liability. The Convention merely declares the carrieliable for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. -or sure, it does not regulate the liability,much less e;empt, the carrier for violating the rights of others which must simply be respected in accordance with their contracts ofcarriage. The application of the Convention must not therefore be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and otherpertinent laws. +n fact, inAlitalia v.+AC, We awarded >r. -elipa *ablo nominal damages, the provisions of the Conventionnotwithstanding.

%ence, petitioners: alleged failure to file a claim with the common carrier as mandated by the provisions of the WarsawConvention should not be a ground for the summary dismissal of their complaints since private respondent may still be held liable forbreach of other relevant laws which may provide a different period or procedure for filing a claim. Considering that petitioners indeedfiled a claim which private respondent admitted having received on !1 Hune, 1D, their demand may have very well been filed withinthe period prescribed by those applicable laws. Conse9uently, respondent trial courts, as well as respondent appellate court, were inerror when they limited themselves to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and disregarding completely the provisions of theCivil Code.

We are unable to agree however with petitioners that rt. !$ of the Convention operations to e;clude the other provisions ofthe Convention if damage is caused by the common carrier:s willful misconduct. s correctly pointed out by private respondent, rt!$ refers only to the monetary ceiling on damages found in rt. !! should damage be caused by the carrier:s willful misconduct.%ence, only the provisions of rt. !! limiting the carrier:s liability and imposing a monetary ceiling in case of willful misconduct onits part that the carrier cannot invoke. This issue however has become academic in the light of our ruling that the trial courts erred indismissing petitioners: respective complaints.

We are not prepared to subscribed to petitioners: argument that the failure of private respondent to deliver their luggage at thedesignated time and place amounted ipso facto to willful misconduct. -or willful misconduct to e;ist, there must be a showing that theacts complained of were impelled by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of one:s rights. +t must beevidenced by a flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper conduct.

( Lhuillier vs. /ritish Airways)

The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel, where the alleged tortious conduct occurred, was between the UnitedIingdom and +taly, which are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention.

Thus, when the place of departure and the place of destination in a contract of carriage are situated within the territories oftwo %igh Contracting *arties, said carriage is deemed an 5international carriage5. The %igh Contracting *arties referred to herein werethe signatories to the Warsaw Convention and those which subse9uently adhered to it.

+n the case at bench, petitionerJs place of departure was ?ondon, United Iingdom while her place of destination was )ome,+taly. oth the United Iingdom and +taly signed and ratified the Warsaw Convention. s such, the transport of the petitioner isdeemed to be an 5international carriage5 within the contemplation of the Warsaw Convention.

/ince the Warsaw Convention applies in the instant case, then the 8urisdiction over the sub8ect matter of the action isgoverned by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention.

Under rticle !D"1# of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff may bring the action for damages before K1. the court where the carrier is domiciled=!. the court where the carrier has its principal place of business=. the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made= or@. the court of the place of destination.

+n this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a ritish corporation domiciled in ?ondon, United Iingdom with ?ondon asits principal place of business. %ence, under the first and second 8urisdictional rules, the petitioner may bring her case before thecourts of ?ondon in the United Iingdom. +n the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by both the petitioner and respondent,it appears that the ticket was issued in )ome, +taly. Conse9uently, under the third 8urisdictional rule, the petitioner has the option tobring her case before the courts of )ome in +taly. -inally, both the petitioner and respondent aver that the place of destination is )ome,+taly, which is properly designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage check. ccordingly, petitionermay bring her action before the courts of )ome, +taly. We thus find that the )TC of 0akati correctly ruled that it does not have8urisdiction over the case filed by the petitioner.

$


6/12

( PAL v. Savillo)

+n the case at hand, /ingapore irlines barred private respondent from boarding the /ingapore irlines flight because *?allegedly failed to endorse the tickets of private respondent and his companions, despite *?Js assurances to respondent that/ingapore irlines had already confirmed their passage. While this fact still needs to be heard and established by ade9uate proofbefore the )TC, an action based on these allegations will not fall under the Warsaw Convention, since the purported negligence on thepart of *? did not occur during the performance of the contract of carriage but days before the scheduled flight. Thus, the presentaction cannot be dismissed based on the statute of limitations provided under rticle ! of the Warsaw Convention.

%ad the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the airlinesJ delay in transporting their passengers, the privaterespondentJs Complaint would have been time7barred under rticle ! of the Warsaw Convention. %owever, the present case involvesa special species of in8ury resulting from the failure of *? andLor /ingapore irlines to transport private respondent from /ingaporeto Hakarta K the profound distress, fear, an;iety and humiliation that private respondent e;perienced when, despite *?Js earlierassurance that /ingapore irlines confirmed his passage, he was prevented from boarding the plane and he faced the dauntingpossibility that he would be stranded in /ingapore irport because the *? office was already closed.

These claims are covered by the Civil Code provisions on tort, and not within the purview of the Warsaw Convention. %encethe applicable prescription period is that provided under rticle 11@ of the Civil Code.

III. RI0T TO CO5PENSATION

Se!tion 11.Right to Compensation and !menities in Caseof Cancellation of Flight.+n case of cancellation of flights,

the following shall be observedelay of at least three "# hours after the 3T>, whether or not such is attributable to the carrier, apassenger shall have the right to for causes attributable to the carrier, itshall be deemed cancelled for the purpose of making available to the passenger the rights and amenities re9uired to beprovided in case of actual cancellation, as provided for in /ection 11.1= and in addition, an affected passenger shall begiven the following, reckoned from the closing of the aircraft doors, or when the aircraft is at the gatewith the doors still open but passengers are not allowed to deplane.1!.@ The provisions of this /ection shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of delay and shall not prohibitthe air carrier from granting more favourable conditions or recourses, as it may deem appropriate.

Se!tion 1. Compensation under Section + as -iuidated Damages. The compensation provided in /ection 12, ifaccepted by the passenger, shall constitute li9uidated damages for all damages incurred by the passenger as a result of the

air carrierJs failure to provide the passenger with a confirmed reserved seat.Provided that, while a confirmed reservation is necessary to make a passenger eligible for compensation, a writtenconfirmation issued by the air carrier or its authori6ed agent 9ualifies the passenger in this regard, even if the air carriercannot find the reservation in the electronic records, as long as the passenger did not cancel the reservation or miss areconfirmation deadline.

Se!tion 1*.Right to Compensation for Delayed, -ost, and Damaged (aggage. passenger shall have the right to havehisLher baggage carried on the same flight that such passenger takes, sub8ect to considerations of safety, security, or anyother legal and valid cause.

[email protected] +n case a checked7in baggage has been off7loaded for operational, safety, or security reasons, the air carrier shallinform the passenger at the soonest practicable time and in such manner that the passenger will readily know of the off7

loading "i.e. that hisLher baggage has been off7loaded and the reason therefor#. +f the passengerJs baggage has been off7loaded, the air carrier should make the appropriate report and give the passenger a copy thereof, even if it had alreadyannounced that the baggage would be on the ne;t flight.The air carrier shall carry the off7loaded baggage in the ne;t flight with available space, and deliver the same to thepassenger either personally or at hisLher residence. -or every twenty7four "!@# hours of delay in such delivery, the aircarrier shall tender an amount of Two Thousand *esos "*hp!,222.22# to the passenger, as compensation for theinconvenience the latter e;perienced. fraction of a day shall be considered as one day for purposes of calculating thecompensation.-or the purposes of this section, the twenty four "!@#7hour period shall commence one "1# hour from the arrival of theflight of the passenger carrying such baggage.1@.! /hould such baggage, whether carried on the same or a later flight, be lost or suffer any damage attributable to the aircarrier, the passenger shall be compensated in the following mannerollars "U/M'$,222.22#, inclusive of legal fees and costs.Provided, in the case of a claim brought in a state wherea provision is made for a separate award for legal fees and costs, the limit shall be the sum of -ifty73ight Thousand United/tates >ollars "U/M$D,222.22#, e;clusive of legal fees and costs.-or domestic flights, the compensation shall be based on the stipulated amount in the relevant convention which governs

international flights, the same to be given in *eso denominations.

Se!tion 1.Right to &mmediate 'ayment of Compensation. n air carrier liable for any and all compensations providedby these rules shall make the same available to the affected passenger at the air carrierJs counters at the airport on the datewhen the occasion entitling the passenger to compensation occurred, or at the main office or any branch of the air carrierat the discretion of the passenger. The air carrier shall tender a check for the amount specified, or cash, or the documentnecessary to claim the compensation or benefits mentioned above= Provided, that such document shall be convertible tocash within fifteen "1$# days from the date when the occasion entitling the passenger to such compensation occurred.

1!

air transportation law

Documents