AMERICAN AIRLINES V.

CA

FACTS:

Private respondent (SALAS and MENDOZA) purchased from SINGAPORE AIRLINES conjuction
tickets for Manila Singapore Athens- Larnaca Rome Turin Zurich- Geneva Copenhagen
New York.
Petitioner was not a participating airline but in Geneva, Private respondent decided to forego his
trip Copenhagen and go straight to NY and exchanged the unused portion of the conjution ticket
for a one-way ticket to New York. Petitioner issued its own ticket and claimed the value of the
unused conjuction ticket from the IATA clearing house in GENEVA
Private respondent filed for damages in the RTC of Cebu for alleged embarrassment and mental
anguish he suffered in Geneva when security prevented him from boarding the plane and
detained him only allowing him to board the plane after all passengers have boarded.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction citing ART. 28 (1) of the Warsaw
Convention; RTC to CA ruled for the validity of jurisdiction.
Petitioner claims that under ART 28 (1) of Warsaw convention:
o Damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff either before:
1. Domicile of the carrier
2. The carriers principal place of business
3. The place where the carrier has a place of business
4. The place of destination
Petitioner: the Philippines is neither the domicile nor the principal place of business of the
defendant airline
That the second contract of carriage cannot be an extension of the first as petitioner airline is
not a participating airline in the first contract
Respondent: Art 17 of Warsaw convention- a carrier may be held liable for damages if the
accident occurred on board the airline or in the course of embarking or disembarking.
Art. 25 1) provisions of the convention will not apply if the damage is caused by the willful
misconduct of the carrier

ISSUE:

WON the PH courts have jurisdiction

HELD

Yes, the contract of carriage entered into by the private respondent with Singapore airlines and
subsequently the petitioner is a contract of international transportation and the provisions in
the Convention applies and exclusively governs the rights and liabilities of the airline and its
passengers.
This includes art 28 (1) which enumerates where an action may be brought.
ART 1 (3) of the convention states that the international character of the contract is not lost if
there are a series of contracts done in different territories and sovereignty
Members o the IATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they act as agent
of each other in issuance of tickets to contracted passengers, thus when the petitioner accepted
 the unused portion of the conjunction tickets, the petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment
under the IATA pool arrangement to act as an agent of the principal contracting airline.
The petitioner assumed the obligation of the carrier originally designated and is within the
provisions of the Warsaw convention.
As the contract was made in manila, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.