KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v.

CA
G.R. No. 31150 June 22, 1975 Ponente Dolot
Spouses Mendoza, a Filipino couple, entered into a world tour contract with the Phil. Travel Bureau. Of the 35-
legged trip, the longest was with KLM. In Manila, KLM issued their tickets for the tour. Unfortunately, their
vacation turned into a nightmare when they were brusquely shoved aside and called ignorantes Filipinos by the
Aer Lingus Manager. Not being able to board the plane, they took a train to Lourdes, France and incurred
unnecessary additional expenses. They now sued KLM for damages. SC ruled in their favor and held that (1)
Art. 30 Warsaw Convention is N/A because this case involves a willful misconduct of KLMs agent, Aer
Lingus; and (2) the contract was exclusively between KLM and spouses Mendoza.
facts of the case
In March 1965, Spouses Rufino & Consuelo Mendoza arranged with the Phil. Travel Bureau, an agent for
international carriers, a world tour itinerary which consisted of a trip of 35 legs. They were to fly on different
airlines, but the longest would be via KLM. The flight from Barcelona to Lourdes, France, would be made via
Aer Lingus, the only airline serving the route.
The spouses Mendoza were issued KLM tickets for their entire trip in Manila. However, their coupon
from Aer Lingus portion was marked RQ, which means On Request.
After seeing American and European cities, the couple arrived at Barcelona for the flight to Lourdes. At the
airport, the manager of Aer Lingus directed them to check in. They did so as instructed and were accepted for
passage. Later, however, the spouses were offloaded on orders of the Aer Lingus manager who brusquely
showed them aside with aid of a policeman and who shouted at them, Coos! Ignorantes Filipinos!
The couple reached Lourdes by boarding a train after undergoing unnecessary trouble and incurring
additional expenses. Upon arrival in the PH, they filed a suit for damages against KLM arising from breach
of contract and for the humiliating treatment they had received.
KLMs defenses:
1. The ticket issued to spouses Mendoza stipulated that the carriage is subject to the Warsaw Convention;
under Art.30 of the Convention, in case of transportation to be performed by various successive
carriers, each carrier shall be deemed to be one of the contracting parties insofar as that part of the
transportation during which the accident or delay occurred.
2. All that KLM did was to request for seat reservations among the airlines and to issue a ticket for the
entire trip as a ticket issuing agent. Thus, it should not be liable for the alleged tortuous acts of the
Aer Lingus Manager.
issues
1. WON the Warsaw Convention applies. NO.
2. WON KLM should be held liable. YES.
ratio
1. Art. 30 Warsaw Convention N/A because it does NOT involve an accident or delay, but a willful
misconduct on the part of KLMs agent, Aer Lingus.
Pertinent provision is Art.25 of Warsaw:
a. The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the of the provisions of this Convention,
which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his willful misconduct
b. The carrier is likewise liable for the damage caused under the same circumstances by any agent
of the carrier
2. The contract of air transportation was exclusively between the spouses and the KLM, the latter merely
endorsing its performance to other carriers, like Aer Lingus, as its subcontractors on agents.
Dispositive: spouses Mendoza awarded: $43 actual, P50K moral and P6K attys fees and costs.