Santos v Northwest Orient AirlinesGR 101538; June 23, 1992Ponente: J. Cruz

FACTS: The petitioner Augusto Santos III is a minor and a resident of the Philippines. Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in Minnesota, U.S.A. and licensed to do business in the Philippines. Petitioner purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in San Francisco for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was December 20, 1986 but no date was specified for his return to San Francisco.

On December 19, 1986, the petitioner checked in at the NOA counter in the San Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to Manila. Despite a previous confirmation, he was informed that he had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. He therefore had to be wait-listed.

Hence, the petitioner sued NOA for damages. NOA contended that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties based on Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention.

ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case

HELD: No. The case at hand does not fall within those territories enumerated by Article 28(1). The place of destination, is determined by the terms of the contract of carriage. Examination of the petitioner's ticket shows that his ultimate destination is San Francisco. The contract between the parties indicates that NOA was bound to transport the petitioner to San Francisco from Manila. Manila should therefore be considered merely an agreed stopping place and not the destination.

Article 1(2) also draws a distinction between a "destination" and an "agreed stopping place." It is the "destination" and not an "agreed stopping place" that controls for purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction under the Convention.

CHINA AIRLINES vs. DANIEL CHIOKG.R. No. 152122; July 30, 2003Ponente: J. Panganiban

Facts:Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines, Ltd. (CAL) airline passenger ticket for transportation covering Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila. Said ticket was exclusively endorseable to Philippine Airlines, Ltd. (PAL). When he arrived in Taipei, he went to the CAL office and confirmed his Hongkong to Manila trip. The CAL office attached a yellow sticker appropriately indicating that his flight status was OK. When Chiok reached Hongkong, he went to the PAL office and sought to reconfirm his flight back to Manila. The PAL office confirmed his return trip and attached its own sticker.

At the airport, PAL’s employee named Carmen did not allow Chiok to board because his name was not listed in the list of passengers, despite confirmations. Chiok the proceeded to PAL office to have his ticket confirmed. When he went back to the airport, he was allowed to board after waiting for some time. While in the insuing commotion, Chiok lost his clutch bag with his valuables in there. He then filed for damages against CAL.

Issue: Whether or not CAL is liable for the actions of PAL.

Held: Yes. It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was between CAL and respondent, with the former endorsing to PAL the trip. Such contract of carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as a single operation. This jurisprudential rule is supported by the Warsaw Convention, to which the Philippines is a party.

It is also a generally accepted rule that the ticket issuing airline is considered as the principal of a contract of carriage, while the endorsee is the agent. Thus, PAL acted as the carrying agent of CAL. CAL cannot evade liability to respondent, even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector.