HISTORY

TheRepublicofthePhilippinesisapartytotheConventionforthe
UnificationofCertainRulesRelatingtoInternationalTransportationby
Air,otherwiseknownastheWarsawConvention.Ittookeffecton!
February13,1933.
Article28(1)oftheConventionreads:
"Art.28(1).Anactionfordamagesmustbebroughtattheoptionofthe
plaintiff,intheterritoryofoneoftheHighContractingParties,either
beforethecourtofthedomicileofthecarrierorofhisprincipalplace
ofbusinessorwherehehasaplaceofbusinessthroughwhichthe
contracthasbeenmade,orbeforethecourtattheplaceofdestination.
COMPLAINTFORDAMAGESMAYBEFILEDAT
(JURISDICTION)
1.THECOURTOFTHEDOMICILEOFTHECARRIER
2.THECOURTOFITSPRINCIPALPLACEOFBUSINESS
3.THECOURTWHEREITHASAPLACEOFBUSINESS
THROUGHWHICHTHECONTRACT(I.E.TICKET)HASBEEN
MADE
4.THECOURTOFTHEPLACEOFDESTINATION
Venueandjurisdictionareentirelydistinctmatters.Jurisdictionmay
notbeconferredbyconsentorwaiveruponacourtwhichotherwise
wouldhavenojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofanaction;butthe
venueofanactionasfixedbystatutemaybechangedbytheconsentof
thepartiesandanobjectionthattheplaintiffbroughthissuitinthe
wrongcountymaybewaivedbythefailureofthedefendanttomakea
timelyobjection.Ineithercase,thecourtmayrenderavalidjudgment.
Rulesastojurisdictioncanneverbelefttotheconsentoragreementof
theparties,whetherornotaprohibitionexistsagainsttheiralteration.

WhenliabilityunderWarsawConventiondoesnotapply.
TheWarsawConventionsetsalimitofliability.However,suchlimitof
liabilitiesdoesnotapplywheretheairlineisatfault.
SabenaBelgianWorldAirlinesu.CourtofAppeals,34 involvesthe
issueoftheairline'sliabilityforlostluggage.Itisundisputedthatthe
passenger'sluggagewaslostwhileitwasinthecustodyoftheairline.
Thetrialcourtfoundtheairlinenegligentandatfault;andthetrial
courtawardeddamagesinfavorofthepassengerwhichtheCourtof
Appealssustained.Theairline,however,claimedthatpursuanttothe
WarsawConvention,itsliabilitywaslimitedtoUS$20.00perkilo
unlessahighervalueisdeclaredinadvanceandcorresponding
additionalchargesarepaid.TheCourtrejectedsuchclaimbecausethe
airlinewasfoundgrosslynegligent,andheldthattheWarsawCon
ventionlimitingtheliabilityoftheairlinedoesnotapplywherethe
latterisguiltyofwillfulmisconductorgrossnegligence.
ThelimitofliabilityasprovidedforintheWarsawConvention
cannotbeusedasanexcusefortheairlineoritspersonneltocommit
wrongfulactsandclaimthatitcannotbeheldliablebeyondwhathas
beenprescribedundertheConvention.Thecourtoftheforumhasthe
discretionofapplyingorignoringtheprovisionsoftheConvention
dependingonthepeculiarfactspresentedbythecase,aswhenthereis
grossnegligenceonthepartoftheairline.