Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Cathay Pacific V.ca 1993

    Uploaded by

    erikha_araneta
    Cathay Pacific Airways vs. CA involved a passenger, Tomas Alcantara, whose luggage was lost during a flight from Manila to Hong Kong to Jakarta. Upon arriving in Jakarta, Alcantara discovered his luggage was missing. He was offered $20 as "inconvenience money" but had to postpone an important conference due to missing documents in his lost luggage. The court found that Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage by failing to deliver the luggage on time. While moral damages are usually not recoverable for lost luggage, the small inconvenience payment was insulting considering Alcantara's first class ticket. Therefore, Cathay Pacific was liable for moral and exemplary damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cathay Pacific V.ca 1993

    Uploaded by

    erikha_araneta
    80 views2 pages
    Cathay Pacific Airways vs. CA involved a passenger, Tomas Alcantara, whose luggage was lost during a flight from Manila to Hong Kong to Jakarta. Upon arriving in Jakarta, Alcantara discovered his luggage was missing. He was offered $20 as "inconvenience money" but had to postpone an important conference due to missing documents in his lost luggage. The court found that Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage by failing to deliver the luggage on time. While moral damages are usually not recoverable for lost luggage, the small inconvenience payment was insulting considering Alcantara's first class ticket. Therefore, Cathay Pacific was liable for moral and exemplary damages.

    Original Description:

    SUCCESSION

    Original Title

    Cathay Pacific v.ca 1993

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cathay Pacific Airways vs. CA involved a passenger, Tomas Alcantara, whose luggage was lost during a flight from Manila to Hong Kong to Jakarta. Upon arriving in Jakarta, Alcantara discovered his luggage was missing. He was offered $20 as "inconvenience money" but had to postpone an important conference due to missing documents in his lost luggage. The court found that Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage by failing to deliver the luggage on time. While moral damages are usually not recoverable for lost luggage, the small inconvenience payment was insulting considering Alcantara's first class ticket. Therefore, Cathay Pacific was liable for moral and exemplary damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Cathay Pacific V.ca 1993

    Uploaded by

    erikha_araneta
    Cathay Pacific Airways vs. CA involved a passenger, Tomas Alcantara, whose luggage was lost during a flight from Manila to Hong Kong to Jakarta. Upon arriving in Jakarta, Alcantara discovered his luggage was missing. He was offered $20 as "inconvenience money" but had to postpone an important conference due to missing documents in his lost luggage. The court found that Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage by failing to deliver the luggage on time. While moral damages are usually not recoverable for lost luggage, the small inconvenience payment was insulting considering Alcantara's first class ticket. Therefore, Cathay Pacific was liable for moral and exemplary damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Cathay Pacific Airways vs.

    CA
    G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993

    Facts:

    Respondent Tomas Alcantara was a first class passenger of petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways from Manila to Hongkong and
    onward from Hongkong to Jakarta. The purpose of his trip was to attend the following day, a conference with the Director
    General of Trade of Indonesia. He checked in his luggage which contained not only his clothing and articles for
    personal use but also papers and documents he needed for the conference.

    Upon his arrival in Jakarta, respondent discovered that his luggage was missing. Private respondent was told that his
    luggage was left behind in Hongkong.

    For this, respondent Alcantara was offered $20.00 as “inconvenience money" to buy his immediate personal needs until the
    luggage could be delivered to him. The respondent, as a result of the incident had to seek postponement of his
    pre-arranged conference.

    Issue:

    1. WoN there was breach of contract


    2. WoN Cathay Pacific is liable for damages
    3. WoN the Warsaw Convention is applicable to this case

    Held:

    1. Petitioner breached its contract of carriage with private respondent when it failed to deliver his luggage at
    the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and their
    luggage safely to their destination, which includes the duty not to delay their transportation, and the
    evidence shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
    2. Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be recoverable in instances
    where the mishap results in death of a passenger, or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith. But in
    the case at bar, the inconvenience money offered to Alcantara was insulting considering that he paid for a
    first class accommodation. Petitioner or its agents should have been more courteous and accommodating.
    The conduct of petitioner's representative towards respondent justifies the grant of moral and exemplary
    damages.

    3. Although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country, said convention does not
    operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of
    carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. It must not be construed to preclude the
    operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier
    from liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially
    if wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found or established.

    You might also like