AIR TRANSPORTATION Regulatory Body in Air Transportation Civil Aeronautics Board [CAB] Requisite to Engage in Air Commerce A Certificate

of Public Convenience and Necessity is a permit issued by the CAB authorizing a person to engage in air commerce and/or air transportation, foreign and/or domestic [RA 776 Sec. 11] Case: PAL v. CAB [270 SCRA 538] Warsaw Convention In General: 1. Full Title Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air 2. Date and Place Signed Warsaw Poland, October 12, 1929 3. Formal Adherence Sep 23, 1955 by Proclamation 201 issued by President Ramon Magsaysay Applicability [Art. 1.1] The Warsaw Convention shall apply to: 1. All INTERNATIONAL transportation of persons, baggage or goods 2. Performed by aircraft for HIRE Meaning of International Transportation [Art. 1.2] Any transportation, in which according to the CONTRACT made by the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, w/n there be a break in the transportationare situated either within the: 1. territories of 2 High Contracting Parties, or 2. territory of a single High Contracting Party, IF there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate or authority of another power, even though that power is not a party to this convention Q: What is a High Contracting Party? A: A signatory to the Warsaw Convention and one who subsequently adheres to it Mapa v. CA [8 Jul 97] Carrier:TWA Place of purchase of ticket: Bangkok Sectors: LAX-NYC-BOS-STL-CHI Effect when Transportation is Performed by Several Successive Air Carriers [Art. 1.3)] 1. It shall be deemed, for the purposes of the WC, to be one undivided transportation, PROVIDED 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 2. It shall not lose its international character merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be performed entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting Party American Airlines v. Salas [9 Mar 2000] Carriers: Successive Place of purchase of ticket: SQ in Manila Sectors: MNL-SIN-ATH-LAR-ROM-TUR-ZRH-GEN-CPH-JFK Ticket: Conjunction Liability of Carrier [Art. 17] Art. 17 provides for the liability of the carrier for damage suffered by a passenger, sustained in the event of: 1. the death, or 2. the wounding of a passenger, or 3. any other bodily injury Conditions for Liability [Art. 17] The accident, which caused the damage so sustained, took place: 1. on board the aircraft, or 2. in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking Liability of Carrier [Art. 18]

Art. 18 provides for the liability of the carrier for damage sustained in the event of the [1] destruction or [2] loss of, or [3] of damage to any checked baggage or goods Conditions for Liability The occurrence, which caused the damage, so sustained took place during the transportation by air. Q: What comprises Transportation by Air in reference to Art. 18[1]? A: It shall comprise the period during which the baggage or goods are in charge of the carrier whether: 1. in an airport, or 2. on board an aircraft, or, 3. in the case of a landing outside an airport, in any place whatsoever Q: Does the period of the transportation by air shall extend to any transportation by land, by sea, or by river performed outside an airport? A: As a General Rule, NO. If, however, such transportation takes place in the performance of a contract for transportation by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or transshipment, any damage is PRESUMED, subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the result of an event, which took place during the transportation by air Liability of Carrier for Delay [Art. 19] The carrier shall be liable for damages occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage, or goods. Limitations to Liability of Air Carriers [Art. 22] 1. In transportation of PASSENGERS 125,000 francs [or equivalent], but carrier and pax may agree to a higher limit of liability; 2. In transportation of CHECKED BAGGAGE or GOODS 125 francs [or equivalent] per kilo, unless the consignor declares a higher value and pays a supplementary sum 3. As regards OBJECTS of which pax takes charge HIMSELF [hand carried luggage] 5,000 francs [or equivalent] per pax Cases: 1. Pan Am v. IAC [164 SCRA 286] 2. Alitalia v. IAC [192 SCRA 9] 3. PAL v. CA [207 SCRA 100] 4. Sabena v. CA [Mar 14,1996] 5. British Airways v. CA [Jan 29,1998] Q: When is an Air Carrier NOT entitled to the WC provisions which EXCLUDE or LIMIT Liability? A: When the loss or damage is caused by the WILLFUL MISCONDUCT of the carrier or its agent x x x [Art. 25] Q: What is the effect of receipt by the person entitled to delivery of luggage or goods without complaint? A: It is prima facie evidence that the goods have been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of transportation [Art. 26] Q: What is the duty of the shipper or consignee when the goods are DAMAGED or when there is DELAY in their delivery? A: He must make a complaint to the carrier: 1. In case of DAMAGE the complaint must be made forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within: a. 3 days from the date of receipt in the case of luggage, and b. 7 days from date of receipt in the case of goods 2. In case of DELAY - the complaint must be made at the latest within 14 days from the date on which the luggage or goods have been placed at his disposal [Art. 26] Form of the Complaint: 1. in writing upon the document of carriage, or 2. by separate notice in writing dispatched within the times aforesaid [Art. 26] Effect of Failure to File Complaint within Periods Provided: 1. General Rule no action shall lie against the carrier 2. Exception save in the case of fraud on his [carriers] part [Art. 26]

Jurisdiction Art. 28[1] An action for damages must be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of his principal place of business, or where he has a place of business through which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place of destination. Where a Complaint for Damages Against an Air Carrier May be Instituted [Art. 28]: 1. The court of the domicile of the carrier; 2. The court of its principal place of business; 3. The court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made; 4. The court of the place of destination. Cases: 1. American Airlines v. CA 2. Mapa v. CA

[Mar 9, 2000] [Jul 8, 1997]

Prescriptive Period in Filing a Case for Damages against Carrier [Art. 29]: Within two [2] years, reckoned from: 1. the date of arrival at the destination, or 2. the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or 3. the date on which the transportation stopped Effect of Failure to File Action against the Carrier within 2 years: The right to damages shall be extinguished Rule when Transportation Performed by Successive Carriers under Art. 1.3 Each carrier who accepts pax, baggage or goods shall be: 1. subject to the rules set out in the WC, and 2. deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of transportation insofar as the contract deals with the part of transportation which is performed under his supervision [Art. 30] Against whom can Pax take Action: 1. General Rule only against the carrier who performed the transportation during which the accident or delay occurred, 2. Exception against the first carrier when, by express agreement, it has assumed liability for the whole journey Cases 1. KLM v. Mendoza [22 Jul 1975] 2. LUFTHANSA v. CA [24 NOV 1994] 3. China Airlines v. Chiok [30 Jul 2003] Rule with Respect to Baggage or Goods 1. The pax or consignor shall have a right to action against the FIRST carrier 2. The pax or consignee who is entitled to delivery shall have a right of action against the LAST carrier 3. Each may take action against the carrier WHO PERFORMED the transportation during which the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place 4. The carriers shall be JOINTLY liable to the pax or to the consignor or consignee Q: Is the Warsaw Convention Binding in the Philippines? 1. General Rule YES, it has the force and effect of a law, being a treaty commitment assumed by the Philippine Government 2. However it does NOT operate as: a. an EXCLUSIVE enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage, or b. an ABSOLUTE limit of the extent of that liability The WC must NOT be construed as to PRECLUDE the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws It does not regulate, much less exempt the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of the passengers under the contract of carriage, ESPECIALLY if willful misconduct on the part of then carriers employees is found or established. Bar Questions 2003 # XI

Vivian was booked by PAL, which acted as ticketing agent of Far East Airlines [FEA], for a round trip flight on FEA's aircraft, from MNL-HKG-MNL. The ticket was cut by an employee of PAL. The ticket showed that Vivian was scheduled to leave Manila at 5:30 p.m. on 05 Jan 2002 aboard FEA 007. Vivian arrived at the NAIA an hour before the time scheduled in her ticket, but was told that FEA 007 had left at 12:10 p.m. It turned out that the ticket was inadvertently cut and wrongly worded. PAL employees manning the airport's ground services nevertheless scheduled her to fly 2 hours later aboard their plane. She agreed and arrived in HKG safely. The aircraft used by FEA developed engine trouble, and did not make it to HKG but returned to MNL. Vivian sued both PAL and FEA, for damages because of her having unable to take the FEA flight. Could either or both airlines be held liable to Vivian? Why? [6%] 1993 # XV Z shipped 13 boxes through LG Airlines from Teheran to Manila. Z did not declare an inventory of the contents or the value of the 13 boxes. After the boxes arrived in Manila, Z was able to claim only 12 pieces. Z advised LG of the loss of one box. Efforts of LG to trace the missing box were fruitless. Z filed an action for breach of contract with damages against the LG. LG alleged that the Warsaw Convention which limits the liability of the carrier to a sum of $20 per kilo or $9.07 per pound, unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid by the pax and the conditions of the contract as set forth in the air waybill, expressly subject the contract of the carriage of cargo to the WC. May the allegation of LG be sustained? Explain.