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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    UNITEDAIRLINES Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Raven Tail
    United Airlines denied boarding to Aniceto Fontanilla, his wife, and son for an overbooked flight, even though they had confirmed tickets. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Fontanilla, applying U.S. laws on overbookings. The Supreme Court overturned this, holding that based on the doctrine of lex loci contractus, the law of the Philippines should apply instead, as that is where the original airline tickets were purchased from United's Philippine agent. While the tickets were rewritten in the U.S., the nature of the original contract remained one entered into in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

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

    UNITEDAIRLINES Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Raven Tail
    17 views1 page
    United Airlines denied boarding to Aniceto Fontanilla, his wife, and son for an overbooked flight, even though they had confirmed tickets. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Fontanilla, applying U.S. laws on overbookings. The Supreme Court overturned this, holding that based on the doctrine of lex loci contractus, the law of the Philippines should apply instead, as that is where the original airline tickets were purchased from United's Philippine agent. While the tickets were rewritten in the U.S., the nature of the original contract remained one entered into in the Philippines.

    Original Title

    UNITEDAIRLINES vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    United Airlines denied boarding to Aniceto Fontanilla, his wife, and son for an overbooked flight, even though they had confirmed tickets. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Fontanilla, applying U.S. laws on overbookings. The Supreme Court overturned this, holding that based on the doctrine of lex loci contractus, the law of the Philippines should apply instead, as that is where the original airline tickets were purchased from United's Philippine agent. While the tickets were rewritten in the U.S., the nature of the original contract remained one entered into in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views1 page

    UNITEDAIRLINES Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Raven Tail
    United Airlines denied boarding to Aniceto Fontanilla, his wife, and son for an overbooked flight, even though they had confirmed tickets. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Fontanilla, applying U.S. laws on overbookings. The Supreme Court overturned this, holding that based on the doctrine of lex loci contractus, the law of the Philippines should apply instead, as that is where the original airline tickets were purchased from United's Philippine agent. While the tickets were rewritten in the U.S., the nature of the original contract remained one entered into in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    UNITEDAIRLINES,INC vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS, ANICETO FONTANILLA, in his personal


    capacity andin behalf of his minor son MYCHAL ANDREW FONTANILLA, Respondents.
    G.R. No. 124110 April 20, 2

    FACTS: Aniceto Fontanilla bought from United Airlines, through the Philippine Travel Bureau in Manila,
    three “Visit the U.S.A.” tickets from himself, his wife and his minor son, Mychal, to visit the cities
    of Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles. All flights had been confirmed previously by United
    Airlines. Having used the first coupon to DC and while at the Washington Dulles Airport, Aniceto
    changed their itinerary, paid the penalty for rewriting their tickets and was issued tickets with
    corresponding boarding passes with the words: “Check-in-required.” They were then set to
    leave but were denied boarding because the flight was overbooked.

    The CA ruled that private respondents’ failure to comply with the check-inrequirement will not
    defeat his claim as the denied boarding rules were not complied with applying the laws of the
    USA, relying on the Code of Federal Regulation Part on Over sales of the USA.

    ISSUE: WON the CA is correct in applying the laws of USA.

    HELD: No. According to the doctrine of “Lex loci contractus”, the law of the place where a contract is
    made or entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and
    interpretation shall govern. This has been said to be the rule even though the place where the contract
    was made is different from the place where it is to be performed. Hence, the court should apply the
    law of the place where the airline ticket was issued, where the passengers are residents and
    nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant airline. Therefore,
    although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in the United States, the tickets were
    purchased through petitioner’s agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were "rewritten" in
    D.C., however, such fact did not change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered into by
    the parties in Manila.

    You might also like