AIR TRANSPORTATION
Prescriptive Period – 2 years from the date of delivery in
A is a passenger of Cebu Pacific. He took a flight from
Manila to Cebu and brought with him his hand
carried baggage, one checked in luggage. Let’s say
the bill of lading provides that the liability of
CebuPac is limited to 1000 peso per kilo unless the
shipper declares a higher valuation and also the
ticket limits the liability of the common carrier in
case of death of the passenger in the amount of 10k.
Unfortunately, in the course of transportation, a
passenger stabbed another passenger, worse,
baggage was also lost. What is the liability of
CebuPac as regards the luggage and the death caused
by passenger to another passenger?
Answer: The liability is limited to 1000php per
kilo because the shipper did not declare a higher
valuation. As to the death, the stipulation
limiting the liability to a certain amount is void.
Civil Code still applies.
This time, it is international transportation from
Manila to New York which stopped over in Bangkok.
Same incident. The passenger died. The ticket
stipulates that the liability of the carrier is 100k
dollars for the death caused to passengers and x
amount for every kilo unless the shipper declares a
higher valuation. Is that stipulation valid? What is
the amount of liability?
Answer: Liability in case of death to the
passenger without any bad faith, tortuous
conduct or fault on the part of the debtor, the
amount of liability is $100k.
It had undergone 5 amendments (when you amend a
convention, it is called a protocol)
What about the limitation as to the liability for loss
or damage to goods?
A: $20 per kilo
What are the important features of Warsaw
Convention as to the liability of common carrier in
the case of international air transportation? In terms
of uniform liability of common carriers engaged in
international air transportation?
A: Which court shall hear the claim?
4-jurisdictional rules
1. Where the air carrier is domiciled
2. Where the carrier has his business
establishment
3. Where the contract was made
4. The place of destination
Is that constitutional? Was there a case that assailed
the constitutionality of the Warsaw Convention?
A: Northwest Case. There was a case but the SC did not
take cognizance because the elements of judicial inquiry
or power cannot be exercised or present.
case of goods. 2 years from the date of arrival in case of
passengers.
In case of successive carriers (various leg of
transportation), the carrier that caused the loss, injury or
death to the passenger is liable. All of them are solidarily
liable but the one who caused the loss, damage or death
shall be ultimately liable.
Does the commission of a tortuous conduct remove
the case from the ambit of the Warsaw Convention?
A: Except the case of Lhuiller, that is a bad case. In all the
cases before that, the commission of a tortuous conduct
of a carrier or employee takes it out from the ambit of
the Warsaw Convention.
What happened in that case? Did the court take it out
of the Warsaw Convention? Did the SC apply the 4
jurisdictional rules in that case?
A: The passenger asked for assistance of the attendant in
putting the bag in the compartment but the latter said
that if I were to help every passenger, I would break my
back. The ticket was purchased in UK and she was bound
for Italy. She filed a case for tort in Makati.
How did the SC rule on the matter? Did it say that
because the cause of action is based on tort, it is
taken out of the application of Warsaw Convention?
Therefore, the claimants and the aggrieved
passengers are not bound by the 4 jurisdictional
rules, do the rules on venue under the Philippine
rules apply?
A: The 4 jurisdictional rules will not apply. Despite the
fact that tort existed, it did not take it out of the Warsaw
Convention.
Prior to this, the SC was consistent that if tort existed,
then it is governed by the Civil Code, not the Warsaw
Convention.
DISCUSSION
In case of domestic air transportation, the applicable law
is still the Civil Code provisions on common carrier.
That’s why all our discussions on common carrier will
apply. Presumption of fault or negligence in case of death
or injury to passengers. Presumption of negligence
likewise and fault in case of damage, loss or
deterioration to goods.
Earlier, the stipulation limiting the liability of common
carriers in case of domestic air transportation, both as
regards the goods and liability brought by death or
injury to the passengers and we said that stipulation
limiting the liability of the common carrier in case of
death or injury is void, it is contrary to law. Whereas the
stipulation on the liability of the CC in case of loss or
damage to the goods is valid for as long as the carrier
allows the shipper to declare a higher valuation and if
the shipper does not declare, the limitation of liability as
specified in the bill of lading or ticket is valid.
Why is it that stipulation with regard limitation on
liability in case of death and injury to passenger is
void?
Because the stipulation which allows the shipper to
declare a higher valuation only pertains to goods. There
is no similar stipulation regarding death or injury to
passengers.
What if it is a case of international air transportation
under the Warsaw Convention, is that stipulation
valid?
In both cases, both stipulations are valid. Under the
Warsaw Convention, a limitation on the liability of the
carrier in case of international air transportation is
$100k as long as there is no fault or tortuous conduct on
the part of the carrier or any of its employees. If the
death or injury then is caused by other passenger, that
limitation will apply.
What about limitation as regards goods?
Liability is 20$ per kilo for checked luggage or 9.07
pound. For unchecked baggage, it is $400 per kilo, that’s
why a carrier examines your luggage, unless the shipper
declares a higher valuation.
What protocol to the convention increased the
amount from $75k to $200k? Montreal Agreement
(1971)
That has not been amended. Limit is $200k in case of
death or injury to passengers. Only if there is no tortuous
conduct or no fault on the part of the carrier or its
servants or employees. If there is tort, it is taken out of
the application of the Warsaw Convention and so, the
liability depends on the amount proven during the trial.
With the increase of Philippine nationals traveling
abroad, is there a need to amend the Warsaw
Convention? (Kwento na si Dean tungkol sa teaching
career nya. He made a researched that the WC
undergone 5 amendments. It was adopted 1929, became
effective 1936?)
The rule then was presumed liability on the part of the
common carrier.
The Warsaw Convention counteracts or tempers the
presumption of negligence.
Significant features of Warsaw Convention
1. Format and legal significance
2. Limit on liablitiy
 $100,000 in case of death of a passenger
3. jurisdiction or ythe so-called 4 jurisdictional
rules
i. where the carrier is domiciled
ii. the place where its principal office is
located
iii. the place where the contract was
executed or carried out
iv. the place of destination of the passenger
prescription period to file an action- 2
years from arrival of the carrier
Applicability of Warsaw Convention
It applies when the Philippines is one the itineraries such
was Manila- New York or New York- Manila, Manila to
Netherlands with stopover in Switzerland If the place of
departure and the place of destination are located in
territory of two high contracting states. High
contracting states means the signatories to the
Convention.
What if the place of departure and the place of
destination are located in one country or contracting
party only? It what situation will be covered by the
Warsaw Convention? If there is a stopover or
transshipment in any other territory even though it is
not a party of the Warsaw Convention.
Constitutionality of Warsaw Convention
Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines: The attack
pertained to equal protection. Ticket was purchased in
Manila, destination was San Francisco. The so-called 4
jurisdictional rules bring inconvenience to the claimant.
The Supreme Court did not take cognizance on the
constitutionality since it is not the main issue and the
elements to rule on the constitutionality are not present
in this case.
The Supreme Court said in many occasions that the
existence of tort takes the case out of the ambit of the
Warsaw Convention which means that, is the 2-year
prescription period applicable if the cause of action is
based on tort? No.
In what cases or incidents will the Warsaw Convention
apply? In case of loss or damage to goods in the course of
carriage, or death or injury to passenger while on board,
on the point of embarking and disembarking. If there is
no fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, the 2-
year prescriptive period the 4 jurisdictional rules will
apply.
The Supreme Court said that the Warsaw Convention is
not the sole law that governs the relation between the
passenger and the carrier. If your action is based on the
Warsaw Convention, you cannot apply local laws. You
cannot apply tort if there is no fault or negligence on the
part of the carrier. So, one excludes the other. In case of
tort, the Supreme Court said the Warsaw Convention
may be disregarded and the local laws will apply.
In a case, passenger was bumped off. The defense said it
was not a bump off but a delay. If it is delay, it is under
the Warsaw Convention and the 2-year prescriptive
period will apply. The Supreme Court made a fine
distinction between bump off and delay. Delay means
postponement while bumping off means your seat if
given to another.
Downgrade from first class accommodation to economy
is a tortuous conduct.

PAL vs. CA: Acase involving a microwave. The Supreme
Court said if the shipper is not allowed declare a higher
valuation because he was made to believe that he does
not need to, it is a tortuous conduct taking it out of the
Warsaw Convention.
The only bad case is Lhuillier vs. British Airways. Before
this case, the Supreme Court has consistently held tort
takes the case out of the Warsaw Convention. Good thing,
Lhuiller has not yet been asked in the bar exams.
Warsaw Convention was in the bar exams only twice.
How do you answer questions based on tort? You answer
either based on Lhuiller or based on other cases. If the
case is on all force with Lhuillier, that a passenger
requests assistance in placing his luggage on overboard
compartment but was told by the staff or airline crew
that “if will help then I will have a bad back and then
apply he alighted he was scolded (?), then apply Lhuillier.
In all other cases, apply the principles. That is, in case of
tort, it is beyond the ambit of Warsaw Convention.
Sabena World Airlines vs. CA: Baggage twice delayed
amounted to fraud.
Air France vs. Carrascoso: First class round trip
downgraded to economy amounted to bad faith.
Cathay Pacific vs. CA- Luggage was missing and
passenger was given an assurance that his luggage will
be given to him. But despite assurance, it was not given
to him.
Alitalia (?) vs. CA: Almost late in time of departure,
scolded by airline crew while other passengers were
escorted, amounts to bad faith.
Alitalia vs. IAC : The luggage containing the script for the
lecture to be delivered abroad was lost. She was not able
to deliver her lecture. Airline acted in bad faith.
Cases where the Warsaw Convention were applied:
Simple loss or damage without any improper conduct on
the part of the carrier.
Does overbooking amount to bad faith?
It depends on the fine print. Hence, read the fine print. If
it says you have be there 45 minutes before the
departure and you have not yet checked in at that time,
they can apply the terms of the contract and give your
seat to somebody else. I repeat it depends on the
stipulations printed on the ticket. Otherwise,
overbooking per se amounts to bad faith, the Supreme
Court said.
Indifference in case of loss of bag, meaning the passenger
was not given the attention she deserves. The Supreme
Court said that indifference amounts to bad faith.
A passenger was not allowed entry in Japan in a day tour
as he was not given visa by the Japanese authorities, can
it be taken against the carrier? No. The Supreme Court
said that obligation of the carrier is only to transport the
passenger. It has no obligation to ensure that the
passenger will be allowed entry in the country of
destination.
When does the liability of the airline commence? It
commences when the airline issues a ticket that
confirmed for a particular flight. Therefore, if the
passenger is not transport or his goods are no carried,
then there is breach of contract of carriage on the part of
the carrier.
What if something happens to the passenger before the
flight, like when he figured in an accident? Does the
presumption of negligence apply? No. Under the Warsaw
Convention, the death or injury must happen while the
passenger is on point of boarding, embarking or
disembarking.
What if the passenger, who has already disembarked,
returned to the plane to get his baggage when he is
suppose to get it from the conveyor, will the cases which
state that the liability does not end until the passenger
has time or opportunity to leave the premises apply? No,
because the Warsaw Convention is clear that the death
or injury must happen while the passenger is on the
point of embarking or disembarking.
48mins onwards … Not in the baggage claim area. And on
way back to the airplane, he figured an accident. Can you
apply what we learned that the passenger is accorded
reasonable time to leave the premises. Of course, not.
The Warsaw Convention is very clear, the loss, damage,
death or injury has to be during boarding or point of
embarkation or disembarkation.
The last one, damages. We already covered. What
damages can be claimed in case of death?
1. Actual damages
2. Basic indemnity of P50,000
3. Loss of earning capacity
4. Moral capacity in case of death of the passenger
Question: Can you ask moral damages even if there is no
death of passenger?
Answer: Yes, in case of willful or tortious
misconduct on the part of the carrier or its employees.
Case: Northwest (2015): In Narita, Japan, there is a
curfew. The plane must leave before 6pm. In this case,
the plane was not given clearance by the Japanese air
control authority. Because of that, the passenger sued
the carrier for delay. Is he liable?
Answer: No liability. It was beyond the control
of the common carrier. The rules of air control
cannot be dictated by the common carrier.
Recitation of cases in Air Transport
1. British Airways v. CA – Ininterrupt na ni Dean,
skip to Warsaw Convention cases
2. PAL v Judge Savillo: The Court held that the NCC
shall apply and NOT the Warsaw Convention.
The delay was due to the repeated assurances
 by PAL, the passenger was not able to board the
plane. The cause of action is not based on the
Warsaw convention.

3. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines:

Question: Causes of action by the passenger in

this case?
Answer: You know what “cono” means?
It is a European lingo meaning impakto. Aside
from being offloaded, the passenger was called
“cono” and “ignorantes Filipinos” by the
employees.

4. Al Italia: The claim for damages shall not be

limited to provisions of the Warsaw Convention.
The SC awarded the UP prof nominal damages.

Question: If the passenger is upgraded to first

class, should Warsaw Convention apply? (Cathay
v. Vasquez)
Answer: No. there is no loss, damage,
injury or death.

5. Lhuillier: Venue in filing actions

6. Luftansa: Warsaw Convention shall not apply.
The seat was given to another passenger.
Successive carriages shall be considered a single
journey.
7. Limitation of liability will not apply. The
passenger was willing to make a higher
declaration but he was prevented by the
employee through assurances that there is no
need to make such.
8. Sabena World: The loss of the baggage twice by
the carrier amounts to gross negligence and
want of care.