Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


It debunked petitioners claim that it had

merely acted as an issuing agent for the ticket
FACTS: covering the Hong Kong-Manila leg of respondents
1. Chiok purchased from China Airlines (CAL) an airline journey. In support of its decision, it cited a case (KLM
passenger ticket for air transportation covering Manila- v. CA) which provides:
Taipei-Hongkong-Manila. Said ticket was exclusively a. Article 30 of the Warsaw providing that in case
endorseable to PAL. of transportation to be performed by various
2. Nov 21 chiok arrived from Manila to Taipei and successive carriers, the passenger can take
confirmed his Hongkong to Manila which CAL action only against the carrier who performed
confirmed as flight status OK. When he reached the transportation during which the accident or
Hongkong, he again reconfirmed it with PAL, and the the delay occurred presupposes the occurrence
latter confirmed it. of either an accident or delay in the course of
3. Nov 24 Chiok proceeded to Hongkong international the air trip, and does not apply if the damage is
airport for his return trip to manila. However, upon caused by the willful misconduct on the part of
reaching the PAL counter, Chiok saw a poster stating the carriers employee or agent acting within the
that Flight No. PR311 (his flight) was cancelled due to scope of his employment.
a heavy storm in Manila. b. However, it would be unfair and inequitable to
a. He was then informed that all the confirmed charge a passenger with automatic knowledge
ticket holders of PAL Flight No. PR 311 were or notice of a condition which purportedly would
automatically booked for its next flight, which excuse the carrier from liability, where the
was to leave the next day. notice is written at the back of the ticket in
4. Nov 25 Chiok went to the airport. A stewardess took letters so small that one has to use a magnifying
his luggage. PALs terminal supervisor informed the glass to read the words
latter that Chioks name was not in the computer list of
passengers. Subsequently, Carmen informed Chiok ISSUES:
that his name did not appear in PALs computer list of 1. WON there was misquotation of KLM v. CA case (since
passengers and therefore could not be permitted to judge merely relied on the syllabus of the case), and
board PAL Flight No. PR 307. therefore, said case will not apply in the instant case?
a. He asked the supervisor to write the reason why. 2. WON CAL is liable for damages since it was the plane
After that, he found out that his luggages were of PAL which Chiok wasnt able to board into?
5. Chiok then confronted the supervisor and asked to be HELD:
book that night. Later that night, Chiok went to the PAL First Issue: There was misquotation, however, it is still
Check in counter. He placed his travel documents in applicable.
the counter along with his clutch bag. 1. In the KLM case, the applicability insisted upon by the
a. A personnel however asked him to change KLM of article 30 of the Warsaw Convention cannot be
counter. In the ensuing commotion, Chiok lost sustained. That article presupposes the occurrence of
his clutch bag containing money, gold pens, either an accident or a delay, neither of which took
cartier watch, and gems. place. What is manifest here is that, Aer Lingus,
6. Chiok filed a complaint for damages against PAL and through its manager, refused to transport the
CAL. respondents
7. RTC: ruled in favor of Chiok.
2. In the instant case, the SC ruled that the decision of contracted passengers to boost ticket sales
the CA is actually supported by the KLM Case worldwide and at the same time provide
a. By the very nature of their contract, defendant- passengers easy access to airlines which are
appellant CAL is clearly liable under the contract otherwise inaccessible in some parts of the
of carriage with Chiok and remains to be so, world
regardless of those instances when actual 3. Therefore, CAL is still liable.
carriage was to be performed by another carrier.
b. The issuance of a confirmed CAL ticket in favor
of Chiok covering his entire trip abroad ON THE ISSUE OF DAMAGES:
concretely attests to this. This also serves as 1. For moral damages, the records amply establish that
proof that defendant-appellant CAL, in effect Chiok secured repeated confirmations of his PR 311
guaranteed that the carrier, such as defendant- flight on November 24, 1981. Hence, he had every
appellant PAL would honor his ticket, assure him reason to expect that he would be put on the
of a space therein and transport him on a replacement flight as a confirmed passenger. Instead,
particular segment of his trip. he was harangued and prevented from boarding the
original and the replacement flights.
Second Issue: YES. a. Thus, PAL breached its duty to transport him.
1. It is significant to note that the contract of air After he had been directed to pay the terminal
transportation was between petitioner and respondent, fee, his pieces of luggage were removed from
with the former endorsing to PAL the Hong Kong-to- the weighing-in counter despite his
Manila segment of the journey. Such contract of protestations.
carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as b. To make matters worse, PAL allowed a group of
a single operation. non-revenue passengers, who had no confirmed
a. This jurisprudential rule is supported by the tickets or reservations, to board Flight PR 307.
Warsaw Convention and by by the existing c. The carrier's utter lack of care and sensitivity to
practices of the International Air Transport the needs of its passengers, clearly constitutive
Association (IATA). of gross negligence, recklessness and wanton
2. Under a general pool partnership agreement, the disregard of the rights of the latter, are acts
ticket-issuing airline is the principal in a contract of evidently indistinguishable or no different from
carriage, while the endorsee-airline is the agent. fraud, malice and bad faith (bad faith needed to
a. Members of the IATA are under a general pool award moral damages)
partnership agreement wherein they act as
agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to