NORTHWEST

v CA
FACTS:
1. Rolando Torres is in a special mission to purchase firearms for the Philippine
Senate.
2. He purchased a roundtrip ticket from Northwest Airlines for his travel to
Chicago and back to Manila.
3. On his way back to Manila, Northwest Airlines required the baggage to be
opened and the authorization from the Philippine Government and the
purchase receipts.
Northwest sealed the baggage with the firearm and put a tag Contains
Firearms.
4. Upon arrival in Manila, Torres was not able to claim the baggage with the
firearm. He was informed by Northwest that his baggage containing the
firearms was recalled back to Chicago by Northwest for US Customs
Verification.
5. When Torres claimed his bag, he found out that the firearms were missing. A
Personal Property Missing Damage Report was issued by Northwest to
Torres.
6. Northwest refused to settle amicably which prompted Torres to file a case
before the trial court.
7. In Northwests answer it pleaded:
It was the agents from US Customs who ordered the return of the
opens
When the baggage was opened, the box contained no firearms.
Since there were no firearms, the baggage that Torres have when he
arrived in Manila must have contained the firearms.
8. Northwest filed a Motion to Dismiss by way of Demurrer to Evidence with
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dismissal of the complaint in so far as it prays for moral, exemplary
and temperate damages and attorneys fees.
Summary judgment to award plaintiff actual damages within the
provisions of the Warsaw Convention.
Warsaw convention and the contract of carriage limited its liability to
US 640 and that the evidence presented by Torres did not entitle him
to reimbursement from any damages.
9. Instead of ruling on Northwests Motion, the trial court rendered a full blown
decision against Northwest
$9,0009 in its peso equivalent representing the value of the firearms
- Was grounded on the TC finding that the act of Northwests
personnel in Tokyo Airport in just guessing which baggage contained
the firearm was careless and imprudent. This is a willful misconduct
which brought the case beyond the application of the Warsaw
Convention.
Attorneys fees
Expenses of litigation
 Moral Damages.
-The following were grounded on the fact that Northwests
unjustifiable refusal to settle his claim prompting him to litigate in
order to assert his right.

10. Upon appeal, CA sustained TC judgment as to the amount of actual
damages but set aside the rest of the decision.
Torres assert:
-Failure of the TC to award the damages prayed for by him.
Northwest assert:
-The case was prematurely resolved because the TC prevented them
from presenting evidence, thereby, denying them due process.
CAs ruling:
-The TC erred in determining by way of summary judgment in the
amount of damages for under Section 3 of Rule 34, a summary
judgment may be rendered upon a proper motion except as to the
amount of damages.
-Northwest moved for summary judgment only on the issue of actual
damages only.
-Northwest moved for the dismissal of Torres claims by way of
demurrer to evidence.
-Thus, the TC can not dispose of the case on its entirety.
On the demurrer to evidence, the TC may either deny or grant it. If it is
granted, the TC should allow Northwest to present its evidence. If
denied, no award for damages should have been made.
-Since the demurrer was impliedly denied, Northwest should have
presented their evidence.
11. Hence, this petition
Northwests contention
-The loss of firearms was disputed
-The finding of willful misconduct was arbitrary
-Torres failed to produce a US license for the shipment of firearms.
Torres contention:
-CA erred in setting aside the decision of TC as to the award of
damages

ISSUE: W/N the TC erred in determining by way of summary judgment in the
amount of damages.

HELD: YES.
1. Summary judgment is allowed if, except as to the amount of damages, there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
In the case at bar, NORTHWEST, the defending party, moved for
summary judgment on the claim for actual damages after TORRES had
 presented his evidence in chief. This was allowed by Section 2 where
the motion may be filed at any time as distinguished from section 1
where the claimant, like TORRES, may file the motion at any time after
the answer is filed.
Northwest denied in its Answer all the material allegations in the
complaint. It contended that assuming that the firearms were lost,
their liability was limited by the Warsaw Convention. Thus, in
submitting for summary judgment the matter of its liability only to the
maximum allowed in the Warsaw Convention, Northwest
hypothetically admitted that the firearms were lost.
-Northwest did not waive the presentation of evidence that it
was not in fact liable for the alleged loss of firearms. It could
still prove that it was not liable beyond what the Warsaw
Convention provided.
Thus, there remain a genuine issue on the fact and amount of actual
damages. Thus, a summary judgment was not in order.