MAPA VS C-A (275-286)

Mapa purchased from TWA Trans World Airlines 2 airline tickets in Bankok Thailand, for Los Angeles- New York
Boston St. Louis Chicago, all of the USA. The domicile of the carrier TWA was Kansas City, Missouri USA, Where its
principal place of business was likewise located. The place of business of TWA where the contract was made was in
Bangkok Thailand. The place of destination was Chicago-USA. The MAPAS left Manila on board Pal for L-A, They left
checked in 7 pieces of luggages at TWA counter at JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they went to the
wrong gate. Hey were however allowed to take a later TWA plane to Boston which was delayed because of the
thunder storm. Upon arrival at boston they were only retrieved 3 out of 7 luggages which loss was immediately
reported to TWA with a total value of S 2,560 as constituting full satisfaction of their claim which the MAPAS accepted
as partial payment for the actual loss of their baggages. Thereafter MAPA filed a case against TWA in the Philippines
Similar to the case of Santos III , TWA move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on section 28(1) warsaw
contending that the complaint should have been brought either in Bankok where the contract was entered into , or in
boston which was the place of destination or in Kansas City which was the carriers domicile and principla place of
business. MAPAS claimed that the WARSAW convention was not applicable because the contract was not an
Internationl Transportation as contemplated under the provision of the WARSAW convention the RTC as affirmed by
the C-A dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Is the Warsaw Convention applicable?
Held: Warsaw convention was not applicable because the contract does not involve an INTERANTIONAL
TRANPORTATION base on the two categories.
(1) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are situated within the territories of two High
Contracting Parties regardless of whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a transshipment; and
(2) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are within the territory of a single High Contracting
Party if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, or authority of another
power, even though the power is not a party of the Convention.

Whether the contracts were of international transportation is to be solely determined from the TWA
tickets issued to them in Bangkok, Thailand, which showed that their itinerary was Los Angeles-New
York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago. Accordingly, since the place of departure (Los Angeles) and the
place of destination (Chicago) are both within the territory of one High Contracting Party, with no
agreed stopping place in a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, suzerainty or authority of
another Power, the contracts did not constitute 'international transportation' as defined by the
convention.

Santos vs. Northwest Orient Airlines (GR 101538, 23 June 1992)

En Banc, Cruz (J): 13 concur
Facts: Augusto Benedicto Santos III is a minor and a resident of the Philippines.
Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in
Minnesota, U.S.A., and licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the
Philippines. On 21 October 1986, Santos purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in
San Francisco, U.S.A., for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back.
The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was 20 December 1986. No date was

specified for his return to San Francisco. On 19 December 1986, Santos checked in
at the NOA counter in the San Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to
Manila. Despite a previous confirmation and re-confirmation, he was informed that
he had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. He therefore had to be
wait-listed.
On 12 March 1987, Santos, represented by his father and legal guardian Augusto
Benedicto Santos, sued NOA for damages in the RTC Makati. On 13 April 1987, NOA
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On 1 February
1988, the lower court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
Santos appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the lower
court. On 26 June 1991, Santos filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was
denied. Santos then came to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied the petition, with costs against Santos.

PanAm World Airways vs. Rapadas (GR 60673, 19 May 1992) Third Division,
Gutierrez Jr. (J): 4 concur
Facts: On 16 January 1975, Jose K. Rapadas held Passenger Ticket and Baggage
Claim Check 026- 394830084-5 for Pan American World Airways Inc.s (PanAm)
Flight 841 with the route from Guam to Manila. While standing in line to board the
flight at the Guam airport, Rapadas was ordered by PanAms handcarry control
agent to check-in his Samsonite attache case. Rapadas protested pointing to the
fact that other co-passengers were permitted to handcarry bulkier baggages. He
stepped out of the line only to go back again at the end of it to try if he can get
through without having to register his attache case. However, the same man in
charge of handcarry control did not fail to notice him and ordered him again to
register his baggage. For fear that he would miss the plane if he insisted and argued
on personally taking the valise with him, he acceded to checking it in. He then gave
his attache case to his brother who happened to be around and who checked it in
for him, but without declaring its contents or the value of its contents. He was given
a Baggage Claim Tag P-749-713. Upon arriving in Manila on the same date, 16
January 1975, Rapadas claimed and was given all his checked-in baggages except
the attache case. Since Rapadas felt ill on his arrival, he sent his son, Jorge Rapadas
to request for the search of the missing luggage. PanAm exerted efforts to locate
the luggage through the Pan American World Airways-Manila International Airport
(PAN AM-MIA) Baggage Service. On 30 January 1975, PanAm required the Rapadas
to put the request in writing. Rapadas filled in a Baggage Claim Blank Form.
Thereafter, Rapadas personally followed up his claim. For several times, he called
up Mr. Panuelos, the head of the Baggage Section of PAN AM. He also sent letters
demanding and reminding the petitioner of his claim. Rapadas received a letter
from PanAms counsel dated 2 August 1975 offering to settle the claim for the sum
of $160.00 representing PanAms alleged limit of liability for loss or damage to a
passengers personal property under the contract of carriage between Rapadas and
PANAM.

Refusing to accept this kind of settlement, Rapadas filed the instant action for
damages on 1 October 1975. Rapadas alleged that PanAm discriminated or singled
him out in ordering that his luggage be checked in. He also alleged that PanAm
neglected its duty in the handling and safekeeping of his attache case from the
point of embarkation in Guam to his destination in Manila. He placed the value of
the lost attache case and its contents at US$42,403.90. According to him, the loss
resulted in his failure to pay certain monetary obligations, failure to remit money
sent through him to relatives, inability to enjoy the fruits of his retirement and
vacation pay earned from working in Tonga Construction Company (he retired in
August 1974) and inability to return to Tonga to comply with then existing contracts.
The lower court ruled in favor of complainant Rapadas after finding no stipulation
giving notice to the baggage liability limitation. The court rejected the claim of
PanAm that its liability under the terms of the passenger ticket is only up to
$160.00. However, it scrutinized all the claims of Rapadas. It discredited insufficient
evidence to show discriminatory acts or bad faith on the part of PanAm. The trial
court ordered PanAm to pay Rapadas by way of actual damages the equivalent peso
value of the amount of $5,228.90 and 100 paengs (Tongan money), nominal
damages in the amount of P20,000.00 and attorneys fees of P5,000.00, and the
costs of the suit. The trial court also dismissed PanAms counterclaim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Hence, the petition
for review.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed and set aside the decision of
the Court of Appeals. The Court ordered PanAm to pay Rapadas damages in the
amount of US$400.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual
payment, P10,000.00 in attorneys fees, and costs of the suit.

British Airways vs. CA (GR 121824, 29 January 1998) Third Division, Romero (J): 3
concur, 1 concur in result
Facts: On 16 April 1989, GOP Mahtani decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India.
In anticipation of his visit, he obtained the services of a certain Mr. Gumar to
prepare his travel plans. The latter, in turn, purchased a ticket from British Airways
(BA) where the following itinerary was indicated (Manila [MNL], PR 310Y, 16 April,
1730H, Status OK; Hongkong [HKG] BA 20M, 16 April, 2100H, Status OK; Bombay
[BOM], BA 19M, 23 April, 0840H, Status OK; Hongkong [HKG], PR 311 Y; Manila
[MNL]. Since BA had no direct flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a
flight to Hongkong via Philippine Airlines (PAL), and upon arrival in Hongkong he had
to take a connecting flight to Bombay on board BA. Prior to his departure, Mahtani
checked in at the PAL counter in Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his
clothings and personal effects, confident that upon reaching Hongkong, the same
would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay.Unfortunately, when
Mahtani arrived in Bombay he discovered that his luggage was missing and that
upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might have
been diverted to London. After patiently waiting for his luggage for one week, BA

finally advised him to file a claim by accomplishing the Property Irregularity

Report.
Back in the Philippines, specifically on 11 June 1990, Mahtani filed his complaint for
damages and attorneys fees against BA and Mr. Gumar before the trial court (Civil
Case CEB-9076). After appropriate proceedings and trial, on 4 March 1993, the trial
court rendered its decision in favor of Mahtani, ordering BA to pay Mahtani the sum
of P7,000.00 for the value of the two (2) suit cases; US$400.00 representing the
value of the contents of Mahtanis luggage; P50,000.00 Pesos for moral and actual
damages and 20% of the total amount imposed against BA for attorneys fees and
costs of the action. The Court dismissed BAs third party complaint against PAL.
Dissatisfied, BA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which however, on 7 September
1995, affirmed the trial courts findings in toto, with costs against BA. Hence, the
appeal by certiorary.
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the
third-party complaint filed by British Airways dated 9 November 1990 against
Philippine Airlines. No costs.