PAL vs. Hon. Adriano Savillo, et. al.

G.R. No. 149547

July 04, 2008
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: The Warsaw Convention Applicability
SUMMARY: Grino, wanting to participate in a golf tournament to be held in Jakarta, booked tickets
with PAL for Manila-Singapore-Jakarta-Singapore-Manila, with PAL to take charge of the ManilaSingapore leg and Singapore Airlines to take charge of the Singapore-Jakarta leg. However, upon
arrival at Singapore, Grino was informed by Singapore Airlines that it could not honor the tickets
presented because PAL had not endorsed them. While Grino and his companions were able to
secure a flight with another airline, the ordeal caused Grino to fall ill and he was unable to
participate in the golf tournament. 3 years later, Grino filed a complaint praying for the award of
moral damages against PAL, for the emotional harm allegedly suffered by him as a result of
having been unreasonably and unjustly prevented from boarding the plane. PAL filed a MtD,
arguing that the Warsaw Convention was applicable and under that Convention, the complaint
had already prescribed, having been filed beyond the 2 year prescriptive period provided
therein. The RTC denied the MtD, holding that the NCC not the Warsaw Convention was
applicable, thus, the complaint had not yet prescribed. The CA dismissed the petition for
Certiorari filed by PAL.
[DIVINA] Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention provides for the liability on the part of a carrier for
damages occasioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods.
Article 24 excludes other remedies by further providing that (1) in the other cases covered by
Articles 18 and 19, any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the
conditions and limits set out in the convention. Therefore, a claim covered by the Warsaw
Convention can no longer be recovered under local law, if the statute of limitations of two years
has already lapsed. Nevertheless, the Court notes that jurisprudence in the Philippines and the
United States also recognizes that the Warsaw Convention does not exclusively regulate the
relationship between passenger and carrier on an international flight. The Court finds that the
present case is substantially similar to cases in which the damages sought were considered to be
outside the coverage of the Warsaw Convention.
[DIVINA] In United Airlines v. Uy, the Court Distinguished between the (1) damage to the
passengers baggage and (2) the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the airlines employees.
The first cause of action was covered by the Warsaw Convention which prescribes in two years,
while the second was covered by the provisions of the Civil Code on torts, which prescribes in
four years. Had the present case merely constituted of claims incidental to the airlines delay in
transporting their passengers, Grinos Complaint would have been time-barred under Article 29
of the Warsaw Convention.
FACTS:
Grino, who was about to participate in a golf tournament in Jakarta, purchased tickets from
PAL with the following points of passage: Manila-Singapore-Jakarta-Singapore-Manila.
o PAL: Manila to Singapore
o Singapore Airlines: Singapore to Jakarta
3 October 1993: In Singapore, however, Singapore Airlines rejected the tickets of Grino
and his group because they were NOT endorsed by PAL Grino tried to contact PALs
airport office, but it was closed.
o Eventually, Grino, et al had to purchase tickets from another airline.
Because of the ordeal, Grino got sick and was unable to participate in the golf tournament.
15 August 1997: When PAL and Singapore Airlines both disowned liability and instead
blamed the other Grino filed a complaint for damages against PAL, seeking
compensation for moral damages.
o PAL: filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the complaint was barred by
prescription under the Warsaw Convention. (Art. 29: 2 year prescriptive period)
DODOT

CASE #663

PAL had received the demand letter on 25 January 1994 more than 3 years prior to
the filing of the complaint.
RTC: DENIED the MtD NCC and other pertinent laws of the Philippines NOT the Warsaw
Convention was applicable.
CA: DISMISSED the petition for certiorari filed by PAL held that Art. 1144 of the NCC (10
year prescriptive period) was applicable.
o

ISSUES:
1. Was the complaint barred?
HELD: (Petition DENIED)
1. NO. The 2 year prescriptive period under the Warsaw Convention does NOT apply
instead, what applies is the 4 year prescriptive period under the NCC (for actions
based on torts).
The Warsaw Convention applies to "all international transportation of persons, baggage or
goods performed by any aircraft for hire" its cardinal purpose is to provide uniformity of
rules governing claims arising from international air travel, thus, it precludes a passenger
from maintaining an action for personal injury damages under local law when his or her
claim does not satisfy the conditions of liability under the Convention.
SEE: Summary
Case at bar: Grinos complaint alleged that both PAL and Singapore Airlines were guilty of
gross negligence, which resulted in his being subjected to "humiliation, embarrassment,
mental anguish, serious anxiety, fear and distress."
o The emotional harm suffered by the private respondent as a result of having been
unreasonably and unjustly prevented from boarding the plane SHOULD BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM the actual damages which resulted from the same incident.
Under NCC (Torts): emotional harm gives rise to compensation where gross
negligence or malice is proven.
o Singapore Airlines allegedly barred Grino from boarding the Singapore Airlines flight
because PAL allegedly failed to endorse the tickets of private respondent and his
companions, despite PAL's assurances to respondent that Singapore Airlines had
already confirmed their passage.
An action based on these allegations will not fall under the Warsaw
Convention, since the purported negligence on the part of PAL did
not occur during the performance of the contract of carriage but
days before the scheduled flight THUS, the 2 year prescriptive
period under the Warsaw Convention does NOT apply.
Covered by NCC provisions on Tort: applicable prescriptive period is 4
years (Art. 1146).
NOTE: Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to
the airlines' delay in transporting their passengers, the private
respondent's Complaint would have been time-barred under Article
29 of the Warsaw Convention.

DODOT

CASE #663