GR NO. 121824 JANUARY 29, 1998  

BRITISH AIRWAYS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

  Gop Mahtani (Mahtani) decided to visit his relatives in Bombay India.  He obtained the services of Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel plans.  Mr. Gumar purchased a ticket from BA with the following itinerary: Manila-Hong

Kong-Bombay-Hong Kong-Manila.  Since there is no direct flight from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a flight

to HK via PAL.  Prior to Mahtani's departure, he checked un at the PAL counter in Manila

together with his two luggage  When he arrived in Bomaby, he discovered that his luggage was missing.  Upon his inquiry from the BA representatives, his luggage might have been

diverted to London.  Back in the Philippines, he filed a complaint against BA and Mr. Gumar  BA filed a counter claim that Mahtani did not have cause of action against it.

(PAL was the one responsible for the transfer)  PAL also filed its answer disclaiming that they don't have any liability. (The

transfer of the luggage to HK authorities should be considered as transfer to BA)  Lower Court:  The decision is in favor of Mahtani.

CA:

  BA appealed to CA  CA affirmed to Lower Court's decision

ISSUE:

  WoN BA is liable for the delay/loss of a passenger’s baggage  

SC

  Modification only on damages and reinstating the 3rd party complaint by BAagainst PAL.

  There are 2 nature of airline's contract of carriage, to wit: 1) a contract to delivera cargo or merchandise to its destination, and 2) a contract to transportpassengers to their destination.

  In the case at bar, it is apparent that the contract of carriage was betweenMahtani and BA. Moreover, ot os indubitable that his luggage never arrived inBombay on time. Thus, as in a number of cases, the court assessed the airline'sculpability in the form of damages and its casual connection to defendant's acts.

  The liability of BA is limited only, at most, to the amount stated in the ticket.

 

  Under the provisions of Art 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention (in a contract of aircarriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher value is needed to recover agreater amount.)

  The court sustained the trial's court ruling in dismissing BA's 3rd party complaintagainst PAL.

  The contract of air transportation in the case pursuant to the ticket issued by BAto Mahtani was exclusively between the latter and the former. When Mahtaniboarded the PAL plane from MNL-HK, PAL was merely acting as a subcontractoror agent of BA.

  The rule that carriage by plane although performed by successive carriers isregarded as a single operation and that the carrier issuing the passenger's ticketis considered the principal party and the other carrier merely subcontractors oragent.

  Since the petition was based on breach of contract of carriage, Mahtani can onlysue BA alone, and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the contract.However, this is not to say that PAL is relieved from any liability due to any of itsnegligent acts.

 

 

GR NO 66102-04 AUGUST 30, 1990PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

  On December 24, 1966, about 11am, the private respondents (Catalina Pascua,et.al.. total of 7 passengers) boarded a jeepney driven by Tranquilino Manalo andowned by sps Isidro Mangune and Guillerma Carreon at Dau, Mabalacat,Pampanga.

  Said jeepney is bound to Carmen, Rosales, Panagasinan. Their contract withManalo was for them to pay P 24.00 for the trip.

  While on their way (upon reaching the barrio of Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac,the right gear wheel of the jeepney was detached, so it was running in anunbalanced position.

  Manalo stepped on the break, as a result, the jeepney which was then running onthe eastern lane made a U-turn and encroached the western lane.

  In such a manner that said jeepney is facing north instead that it should be south.   At that time, Phil Rabbit Bus was approaching, but to no avail, the Bus hit the

right rear portion of the jeepney, resulting three (3) passengers died and otherssustained physical injuries.

Lower Court:

  Heirs of the passengers died filed a criminal complaint against Manalo.  Manalo was held liable for Multiple Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries with

Reckless Imprudence resulting to Damage to property.  Manalo did not file an appeal, thus he served his sentence.  On the other hand, the Heirs also filed a suit for damages against sps. Mangune

and Carreon, Phil Rabbit, and Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corp.  The court held that Carreon, Mangune and Manalo thru their negligence,

breached their contract of carriage with their passengers and be held liable, aswell as Filriters Guaranty Assurance Corp. They were ordered by the court to paythe damages incurred, but not Phil Rabbit and its driver (delos Reyes)

CA

  On appeal, decision for the Phil Rabbit NOT TO be held liable for damages hasbeen reversed.

ISSUE:

  WoN Phil Rabbit is liable for damages to the death of the three (3) passengers.

SC

 

  The Court held that Phil Rabbit is not liable.  The CA had a contrary opinion on applying the following principles, to wit: 1) the

doctrine of last clear chance, 2) the presumption that drivers who bump the rearof another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted byother evidence, and 3) the substantial factor test that delos Reyes was negligent.

  The doctrine of last clear chance, would call for application in a suit between theowners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles, it does not arise where apassenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractualobligations.For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the

 jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty ofnegligence.

  The court found that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence ofManalo and sps. Managune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise precautionsthat are needed.