Northwest Airlines V Cuenca

77 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v.
NICOLAS CUENCA and CA

GR No. L-22425 31 August 1965
By Kylie Dado
NOTE: Poorly-written case; facts are in the 3rd assignment of error
Action by Respondent:
For damages
Allegation: breach of contract
TC: Ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent

CA: Affirmed
ISSUES: W/N TC erred in:

(1) in holding that the Warsaw Convention of October 12, 1929, relative to transportation by air is not
in force in the Philippines;
(2) in not holding that respondent has no cause of action; and
(3) in awarding P20,000 as nominal damages
SC:
1. SC deem it unnecessary to pass upon the first assignment of error because the same is the basis of the
second assignment of error.
2. NO (Case did not say why the full story is on #3; I think the reason why was Warsaw Convention,
according to Petitioners theory, is wrong, and even though its understanding of the said provisions are
correct, the convention would still not be applicable because of our local laws)
The 2nd assignment of error is predicated upon Articles 17, 18 and 19 of said Convention
17: Carrier is liable for damages sustained in event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any
other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained
took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or
disembarking.
18:
o (1) carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or
of damage to, any checked baggage, or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the
damage so sustained took place during the transportation by air
o (2) transportation by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph shall comprise the
period during which the baggage or goods are in charge of the carrier, whether in an airport
or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an airport, in any place
whatsoever.
o (3) period of the transportation by air shall not extend to any transportation by land, by sea,
or by river performed outside an airport. If, however, such transportation takes place in the
performance of a contract for transportation by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery, or
transhipment, any damage is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the
result of an event which took place during the transportation by air.
19: carrier shall be liable for damage occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of
passengers, baggage, or goods.
Petitioners argument:
pursuant to those provisions, an air "carrier is liable only" in the event of death of a passenger or
injury suffered by him, or of destruction or loss of, or damage to any checked baggage or any
goods, or of delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods.
In other words, an air carrier would be exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its
absolute refusal, in bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd
3. NO
The 3rd assignment of error is based upon Medina vs. Cresencia and Quijano vs. Philippine Air Lines.
Neither case is, however, in point, aside from the fact that the latter is not controlling upon us. In
the first case, this Court eliminated a P10K award for nominal damages, because the aggrieved
party had already been awarded P6K as compensatory damages, P30K as moral damages and P10K
as exemplary damages, and "nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages."
In the case at bar, the CA has adjudicated no such compensatory, moral and exemplary damages to
respondent herein.
There are special reasons why the P20K award in favor of respondent herein is justified, even if said award
were characterized as nominal damages.
When his contract of carriage was violated by the petitioner, respondent held the office of Commissioner of
Public Highways of the Republic of the Philippines. Having boarded petitioner's plane in Manila with a first
class ticket to Tokyo, he was, upon arrival at Okinawa, transferred to the tourist class compartment.
Although he revealed that he was traveling in his official capacity as official delegate of the Republic to a
conference in Tokyo, an agent of petitioner rudely compelled him in the presence of other passengers to
move, over his objection, to the tourist class , under threat of otherwise leaving him in Okinawa. In order to
reach the conference on time, respondent had no choice but to obey.
It is true that said ticket was marked "W/L," but respondent's attention was not called thereto. Much less
was he advised that "W/L" meant "wait listed."
Upon the other hand, having paid the first class fare in full and having been given first class
accommodation as he took petitioner's plane in Manila, respondent was entitled to believe that this
was a confirmation of his first class reservation and that he would keep the same until his ultimate
destination, Tokyo. Then, too, petitioner has not tried to explain or even alleged that the person to
whom respondent's first class seat was given had a better right thereto.
Since the offense had been committed with full knowledge of the fact that respondent was an official
representative of the Republic of the Philippines, the sum of P20,000 awarded as damages may well be
considered as merely nominal. At any rate, considering that petitioner's agent had acted in a wanton,
reckless and oppressive manner, said award may also be considered as one for exemplary damages.

Northwest Airlines V Cuenca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Northwest Airlines V Cuenca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Northwest Airlines V Cuenca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

77 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v.

NICOLAS CUENCA and CA

TC: Ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent

ISSUES: W/N TC erred in:

You might also like