2.) China Airlines vs. Chiok 7.
7. The latter sought to recover his luggage but found only 2 which were
GR NO. 152122
July 30, 2003
Topic: Warsaw Convention
Petitioners: China Airlines
Respondent: Daniel Chiok
By: Martin
Doctrine: A common carrier has a peculiar relationship with and an exacting
responsibility to its passengers. For reasons of public interest and policy, the ticket-
issuing airline acts as principal in a contract of carriage and is thus liable for the
acts and the omissions of any errant carrier to which it may have endorsed any
sector of the entire, continuous trip.
FACTS
1. Daniel Chiok purchased from China Airlines (CAL) a passenger ticket for
air transportation covering Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong-Manila. The said
ticket was exclusively endorsable to PAL.  ticket covering the Hong Kong-Manila leg of respondents journey
2. Before he left said trip, the trips covered by the ticket were pre-
scheduled and confirmed by China Airlines. When respondent arrived in
Taipei, he went to CAL to confirm his Hong Kong- Manila trip on board
PAL. The CAL office attached a yellow sticker indicating the status was
OK. 
3. When Chiok reached Hong Kong, he then went to PAL office to confirm
his flight back to Manila. The PAL also confirmed the status of his ticket
and attached a ticket indicating a status OK. Chiok proceeded to Hong
Kong airport for his trip to Manila. However, upon reaching the PAL
counter, he was told that the flight to Manila was cancelled due to
typhoon.
4. He was informed that all confirmed flight ticket holders of PAL were
automatically booked for the next flight the following day.  He then
informed PAL personnel that, being the founding director of the
Philippine Polysterene Paper Corporation, he ha[d] to reach Manila on
November 25, 1981 because of a business option which he had to
execute on said date.
5. The next day, Chiok was not able to board the plane because his name
did not appear on the computer as passenger for the said flight to
Manila.  merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be
6. Chiok requested Carmen to put into writing the alleged reason why he
was not allowed to take his flight. The latter then wrote the following, to
wit: PAL STAFF CARMEN CHAN CHKD WITH R/C KENNY AT 1005H NO
SUCH NAME IN COMPUTER FOR 311/24 NOV AND 307/25 NOV.  3.
placed at the end of the passengers line. Realizing that his new
Samsonite luggage was missing, which contained cosmetics worth
HK$14,128.80, he complained to Carmen.
8. Chiok filed a case for damages against China Airlines and Philippines
Airlines. He alleged therein that despite several confirmations of his
flight, defendant PAL refused to accommodate him in Flight No. 307, for
which reason he lost the business option aforementioned. He also
alleged that PALs personnel, specifically Carmen, ridiculed and humiliated
him in the presence of so many people. Further, he alleged that
defendants are solidarily liable for the damages he suffered, since one is
the agent of the other.
9. Petitioners claim that it had merely acted as an issuing agent for the
ticket covering the Hong Kong-Manila leg of respondents journey
petitioners claim that it had merely acted as an issuing agent for the
10. RTC ruled in favor of respondent. CA affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether or not CAL is liable for damages? (YES)
HELD/RATIO
1. It is significant to note that the contract of air transportation was
between petitioner and respondent, with the former endorsing to PAL
the Hong Kong-to-Manila segment of the journey. 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, and by the existing practices of the
International Air Transport Association (IATA).
2. Article 1, Section 3 of the Warsaw Convention states:
a. "Transportation to be performed by several successive air
carriers shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Convention,
to be one undivided transportation, if it has been regarded by
the parties as a single operation, whether it has been agreed
upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of
contracts, and it shall not lose its international character
performed entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty,
suzerainty, mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting
Party."
Article 15 of IATA-Recommended Practice similarly provides:
 a. "Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers under
one ticket, or under a ticket and any conjunction ticket issued
therewith, is regarded as a single operation."
4. In American Airlines v. Court of Appeals,24 we have noted that under a
general pool partnership agreement, the ticket-issuing airline is the
principal in a contract of carriage, while the endorsee-airline is the agent.
5. As the principal in the contract of carriage, the petitioner must be held
liable, even when the breach of contract had occurred, not on its own
flight, but on that of another airline. The Decision followed our ruling
in Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals,27 in which we had
held that the obligation of the ticket-issuing airline remained and did
not cease, regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to
carry the passengers to one of their destinations.
6. In the instant case, following the jurisprudence cited above, PAL acted as
the carrying agent of CAL. We rule that CAL cannot evade liability to
respondent, even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for the
Hong Kong-Manila sector.

Petiton Denied
Other notes- Award for Moral and Exemplary Damages are granted
because Pal were in Bad Faith