CHAPTER 1
International Law
- Has been defined as the rules and
principles of general application dealing
with the conduct of state and of
international organizations and with their
relations inter se, as well as with some
of their relations with persons, whether
natural or juridical.
- Includes not only question of right
between nations but also questions
concerning the rights of persons within
territory and dominion of one nation, by
reason of acts, private or public, done
within the dominions of another nation
- That branch of law that deals with the
relationship of states as well as the
relationship of individuals of states.
- Both public and private
Public character – internationals subjects
Private character - individuals, domestic laws,
or local events intermingle
with each other
Branches of International Law
1. Public International Law
- Governs the relationship of states and
international entities
2. Private International Law
- Comprehends laws regulating private
interactions across national frontiers.
- Deals with conflict of laws among the
laws of two or more states and
necessitates a determination of which
municipal law applies to a case.
Distinctions
1. As to source
Public International Law- based on
international conventions, international
custom, the general principles of law
recognized by civilized nations and judicial
decisions and the teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists of the various
nations
Private – based on domestic and municipal
laws, which includes the constitution and
statutes adopted by individual countries.
2. As to subjects
Public – has states and international
organization as subjects
Private – has individuals and corporations
as subjects
International Transportation
 Definition (Under WARSAW), when:
(1) The place of departure and the place of
destination are within the territories of two
contracting countries regardless of whether or
not there was a break in the transportation or
transhipment;
(2) The place of departure and the place of
destination are within the territory of a single
contracting country if there is an agreed
stopping place within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, mandate or authority of another
power, even though the power is not a party
to the convention.
 Period covered
-during which the baggage or goods are in charge
of the carrier, whether in an airport or on board
an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an
airport, in any place whatsoever.
NOTE:
(a) It does NOT cover any transportation by land,
by sea, by river performed outside an airport.
(b) If transportation takes place in the
performance of a contract of transportation by
air, for the purpose of loading, delivery or
transhipment, any DAMAGE is presumed,
subject to proof to contrary, to have been the
result of an event which took place during the
transportation by air.
 When international carrier is liable
If the passenger’s injury was inflicted:
(1) On board the aircraft
(2) In the course of any of the operations of
embarking
(3) In the course of disembarking
(4) When there was or because of delay
NOTE: With respect to baggage or goods that are
CHECKED IN- if damage occurred (a) during air
transportation or (b) when there is delay.
Carriage to be performed by successive carriers
Article 1 (3), Warsaw Convention airline
tickets,
Carriage to be performed by several successive air carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be including
one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been agreed that issued
upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contract, and it does not lose its international character by
merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be performed entirely within the territory of the same petitioner,
State. constitutes a
single
operation.
Article 30 (2), Warsaw Convention Members of
the IATA are
In the case of carriage of this nature, the passenger or his representative can take action only against the carrier who  under a
performed the carriage during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the case where, by express  general pool
partnership
agreement, the first  carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey.
agreement
wherein they
act as agent
of each other
in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers to boost
American Airlines v. CA ticket sales worldwide and at the same time provide
FACTS: Respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines in passengers easy access to airlines which are otherwise
Manila conjunction tickets for Manila - Singapore - Athens - inaccessible in some parts of the world. Booking and
Larnaca - Rome - Turin - Zurich - Geneva - Copenhagen - reservation among airline members are allowed even by
New York. The petitioner was not a participating airline in telephone and it has become an accepted practice among
any of the segments in the itinerary under the said them. A member airline which enters into a contract of
conjunction tickets. In Geneva the petitioner decided to carriage consisting of a series of trips to be performed by
forego his trip to Copenhagen and to go straight to New different carriers is authorized to receive the fare for the
York and in the absence of a direct flight under his whole trip and through the required process of interline
conjunction tickets from Geneva to New York, the private settlement of accounts by way of the IATA clearing house
respondent on June 7, 1989 exchanged the unused portion an airline is duly compensated for the segment of the trip
of the conjunction ticket for a one-way ticket from Geneva serviced. Thus, when the petitioner accepted the unused
to New York from the petitioner airline. Petitioner issued portion of the conjunction tickets, entered it in the IATA
its own ticket to the private respondent in Geneva and clearing house and undertook to transport the private
claimed the value of the unused portion of the conjunction respondent over the route covered by the unused portion
ticket from the IATA clearing house in Geneva. In of the conjunction tickets, Geneva to New York, the
September 1989, private respondent filed an action for petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment under the
damages before the regional trial court of Cebu for the IATA pool arrangement to act as agent of the principal
alleged embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at contracting airline, Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of
the Geneva Airport when the petitioners security officers the trip the petitioner agreed to undertake. As such, the
prevented him from boarding the plane, detained him for petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to take the place
about an hour and allowed him to board the plane only of the carrier originally designated in the original
after all the other passengers have boarded. The petitioner conjunction ticket. The petitioners argument that it is not a
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of designated carrier in the original conjunction tickets and
Philippine courts to entertain the said proceedings under that it issued its own ticket is not decisive of its liability.
Art. 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention. The new ticket was simply a replacement for the unused
portion of the conjunction ticket, both tickets being for the
same amount of US$ 2,760 and having the same points of
departure and destination. By constituting itself as an
ISSUE: whether the contract of transportation between the agent of the principal carrier the petitioners undertaking
petitioner and the private respondent would be considered should be taken as part of a single operation under the
as a single operation and part of the contract of contract of carriage executed by the private respondent
transportation entered into by the latter with Singapore and Singapore Airlines in Manila.
Airlines in Manila.

Warsaw Convention Art. 1(3) clearly states that a contract

RULING:
Petitioner disputes the ruling of the lower court that it is.
Petitioners main argument is that the issuance of a new
ticket in Geneva created a contract of carriage separate and
distinct from that entered by the private respondent in
Manila.
We find the petitioners argument without merit.
The contract of carriage between the private
respondent and Singapore Airlines although
performed by different carriers under a series of
of air transportation is taken as a single operation whether
it is founded on a single contract or a series of contracts.
The number of tickets issued does not detract from the
oneness of the contract of carriage as long as the parties
regard the contract as a single operation. The evident
purpose underlying this Article is to promote international
air travel by facilitating the procurement of a series of
contracts for air transportation through a single principal
and obligating different airlines to be bound by one
contract of transportation. Petitioners acquiescence to take
the place of the original designated carrier binds it under
the contract of carriage entered into by the private
respondent and Singapore Airlines in Manila.

KLM v. CA
FACTS:
 The KLM Dutch Airlines secured seat reservation
for respondents and their two companions from
carriers that would ferry them through their world
tour. Their itinerary included the Barcelona-
Lourdes route, serviced by only one airline, the
Aer Lingus.
 They were issued KLM tickets for their entire trip,
but their coupon for the Aer Lingus portion (Flight
861, June 22, 1965) was marked "RQ" which
means "on request."
 At the KLM office in Frankfurt, Germany,
respondents obtained a confirmation from Aer
Lingus of seat reservations on flight 861.
 In the afternoon of June 22, 1965, the Aer Lingus
manager at Barcelona Airport directed
respondents to check in. They did as instructed
and were accepted for passage.
 However, although their companions were allowed
to take the plane, respondents were brusquely off-
loaded and shoved aside on orders of the Aer
Lingus manager with the aid of policeman who
shouted at them "Conñ os! Ignorantes Filipinos." As
a result they had to take a train to Lourdes.
 Respondents sued petitioner for damages arising
from breach of carriage and for humiliating
treatment received by them in the hands of Aer
Lingus.
 After the hearing, the trial court awarded damages
to respondents.
 On appeal, the KLM sought exoneration, but the
Court of Appeals sustained the trial court and
increased the award of damages.
 Petitioner assailed the decision of the Court of
Appeals, and prayed for exculpation. It argued that
its liability for damages is limited only to
occurrence on its own lines citing. Art. 30 of the
Warsaw Convention which provides that in the
case of transportation to be performed by various
successive carriers the passenger can take action
only against the carrier who performed the
transportation during which the accident or delay
occurred.
ISSUE: Whether or not KLM is liable for breach of contract
of carriage?
HELD: Yes. KLM is liable.
The applicability of Art. 30 of the Warsaw Convention
cannot be sustained. The article presupposes the
occurrence of delay or accident. What is manifest here is
that the Aer Lingus refused to transport the spouses
Mendozas to their planned and contracted destination. As
the airline which issued the tickets, KLM was chargeable
with the duty and responsibility of specifically informing
the spouses of the conditions prescribed in their tickets or
to ascertain that the spouses read them before they
accepted their passage tickets. The Supreme Court held
that KLM cannot be merely assumed as a ticket-issuing
agent for other airlines and limit its liability to untoward
occurrences on its own line. The court found, that the
passage tickets provide that the carriage to be
performed therein by several successive carriers is to
be regarded as a “single operation”.
Lufthansa v. CA
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Lufthansa German
Airlines questioning the decision of the lower courts which
favored Tirso Antiporda, herein private respondent.
Antiporda here engaged in the ticketing services of
Lufthansa which issued a confirmed ticket of a five leg trip
for Antiporda who was an official of a bank and was to
attend a meeting at Blantyre the last destination of the trip.
The trip was supposed to be from Manila to Singapore,
Singapore to Bombay, Bombay to Nairobi, Nairobi to
Lilongwe and lastly Lilongwe to Blantyre. Lufthansa issued
to Antiporda a confirmed ticket of Air Kenya to transport
from Bombay to Nairobi however Antiporda was not
transported and was given the reason that his seat was
given to a very important person who was to attend a
religious rite. Thus, Antiporda arrived only in Blantyre a
couple of days later form his scheduled meeting.
Subsequently he filed a case against Lufthansa of the
breach of their contract to transport him to Blantyre and
was given favorably judgment by the courts. Now
Lufthansa assails the judgment using again the Warsaw
Convention and that it cannot be made liable as the ticket it
issued for Air Kenya was a separate contract and not that
of Lufthansa.
ISSUE #1: WON Lufthansa is a mere ticketing agent.
Antiporda entered with Lufthansa an exclusive contract of
carriage, the nature of which is a continuous carriage by air
from Manila to Blantyre Malawi; he did not enter into a
series of independent contracts with the carriers that
transported him for the remaining leg of his trip. Lufthansa
was not merely the ticketing-agent, but the principal in the
contract of carriage with Antiporda. Lufthansa guaranteed
that the successive carriers such as Air Kenya would honor
his ticket. This line from the KLM decision is applicable:
“the passage tickets of the respondents provide that the
carriage to be performed thereunder by several successive
carriers "is to be regarded as a single operation."
ISSUE # 2: WON the Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention is
applicable.
The court ruled that Art. 30 is not applicable as it refers to
accident or delay and that nothing in the given case
constituted accident or delay. The court also held that the
refusal of Air Kenya to transport Antiporda to Nairobi did
not constitute delay and therefore the Warsaw Convention
does not apply in the case. Lufthansa says that U.S.
jurisprudence considers “bumping off” as delay.
"Delay" means to prolong the time of or before; to stop,
detain or hinder for a time, or cause someone or something
to be behind in schedule or usual rate of movement in
progress.
"Bumping-off," which is the refusal to transport
passengers with confirmed reservation to their planned
and contracted destinations, totally forecloses said
passengers' right to be transported, whereas delay merely
postpones for a time being the enforcement of such right.
Northwest v. Cuenca

Art. 30 does not contemplate the instance of “bumping off” FACTS: Having boarded petitioner's
plane in Manila with a first class ticket to
but only simple delay. Thus, payment of damage is
Tokyo, he was, upon arrival at Okinawa,
warranted for which Lufthansa was liable.
transferred to the tourist class
compartment. Although he revealed that
he was traveling in his official capacity as
official delegate of the Republic to a
conference in Tokyo, an agent of
petitioner rudely compelled him in the
presence of other passengers to move,
China Airlines v. Chiok over his objection, to the tourist class,
Facts: China Airlines issued the tickets: MLA-Taipei-HK- under threat of otherwise leaving him in
Okinawa. In order to reach the conference
MLA. The said ticket was exclusively endorseable to
on time, respondent had no choice but to
Philippine Airlines (PAL). In Hong Kong, Chiok went to the
obey. His ticket was marked as wait listed
PAL office and confirmed his HK-MLA trip. However, due to but he paid the full fare for business class
a typhoon the flight was delayed by one day, he was told to seat. Petitioner now argues that t the
return the next day. The following day, Chiok (respondent) Warsaw Convention of October 12, 1929,
upon checking in, was denied boarding because his name relative to transportation by air is not in
did not appear in the computerized passenger list. He had force in the Philippines.
to rebook and missed an important business meeting. He
sued for damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Warsaw Convention is
applicable.
Issue: Who is liable? China Air (issuing carrier) or PAL
(actual carrier)?
RULING:

SC: the contract of air transportation was between China Petitioner argues that pursuant to Articles 17, 18 and 19,
Air and Chiok, with the former endorsing to PAL the Hong an air "carrier is liable only" in the event of death of a
Kong-to-Manila segment of the journey. Such contract of passenger or injury suffered by him, or of destruction or
carriage has always been treated in this jurisdiction as a loss of, or damage to any checked baggage or any goods, or
single operation. This jurisprudential rule is supported by of delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage
the Warsaw Convention,to which the Philippines is a party, or goods. This pretense is not borne out by the language of
and by17the existing practices of the International Air said Articles. The same merely declare the carrier liable for
Article
Transport Association (IATA). damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein
specified are present. Neither said provisions nor others in
the aforementioned Convention regulate or exclude
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of aother
liability for passenger or any
breaches of other bodily
contract by the carrier. Under
under a general
by apool partnership agreement,
whichthe ticket-
the damagepetitioner's
so sustainedtheory,
injury suffered passenger, if the accident caused an air
took place carrier
on board thewould be exempt from
issuing airline is the principal in a contract of carriage, any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal,
aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
while the endorsee-airline is the agent. in bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is
PAL acted as the carrying agent of China Airlines. In the absurd.
same 18
Article way that we ruled against British Airways and
Lufthansa, we also rule that China Airlines cannot evade
liability to respondent, even though it may have been only Sir: Warsaw convention was not applied. New Civil Code was
a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector. used. SC said Warsaw does not exclude NCC. Common
1. The carrier is liable for damages sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, orjust
of damage
be held to, any based on Articles 17-19.
carriers cannot liable
registered baggage or any cargo, if the occurrence which caused the damage
The carrier can still be held liable the
so sustained took place during for other violations not
carriage by air. necessarily covered under Art. 17, 18, 19.
Application of Articles 17, 18 and19

2. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph comprises the period during which the
baggage or cargo is in charge of the carrier, whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a Airline
landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever. General Pool
Agreement

3. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by river performed outside an
aerodrome. If, however, such a carriage takes place in the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the AMERICAL
purpose of loading, delivery or trans-shipment, any damage is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have AIRLINES vs.
been the result of an event which took place during the carriage by air. COURT OF
APPEALS and
DEMOCRITO
MENDOZA
Article 19

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo.
 Members of the IATA are under a
general pool partnership agreement
wherein they act as agent of each other
in the issuance of tickets to contracted
passengers to boost ticket sales
worldwide and at the same time
provide passengers easy access to
airlines which are otherwise
inaccessible in some parts of the world.
Booking and reservation among airline
members are allowed even by telephone
and it has become an accepted practice
among them. A member airline which
enters into a contract of carriage
consisting of a series of trips to be
performed by different carriers is
authorized to receive the fare for the
whole trip and through the required
process of interline settlement of
accounts by way of the IATA clearing
house an airline is duly compensated for
the segment of the trip serviced. Thus,
when the petitioner accepted the unused
portion of the conjunction tickets, entered
it in the IATA clearing house and
undertook to transport the private
respondent over the route covered by the
unused portion of the conjunction
tickets,Geneva to New York, the petitioner
tacitly recognized its commitment under
the IATA pool arrangement to act as agent
of the principal contracting airline,
Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of
the trip the petitioner agreed to
undertake. As such, the American Airilnes
thereby assumed the obligation to take
the place of the carrier originally
designated in the original conjunction
ticket. The petitioners argument that it is
not a designated carrier in the original
conjunction tickets and that it issued its
own ticket is not decisive of its liability.
The new ticket was simply a replacement
for the unused portion of the conjunction
ticket, both tickets being for the same
amount of US$ 2,760 and having the same
points of departure and destination. By
constituting itself as an agent of the
principal carrier the petitioners
undertaking should be taken as part of a
single operation under the contract of
carriage executed by the private
respondent and Singapore Airlines in
Manila.
Application of the Convention
 The Warsaw Convention on Air Transport applies
to international air carriage. The Warsaw
Convention to which the Republic of the
Philippines is a party and which has the force and
effect of law in this country applies to all
international transportation of persons, baggage
or goods performed by an aircraft gratuitously or
for hire. As enumerated in the Preamble of the
Convention, one of the objectives is “to regulate in
a uniform manner the conditions of international
transportation by air.
Limited Liability – when applicable and when
applicable?
Article 22
1. In the carriage of persons the liability of the carrier for
each passenger is limited to the sum of two hundred and fifty
thousand francs. Where, in accordance with the law of the
court seised of the case, damages may be awarded in the
form of periodical payments, the equivalent capital value of
the said payments shall not exceed two hundred and fifty
thousand francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier
and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
2. (a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the
liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of two hundred and
fifty francs per kilogramme, unless the passenger or consignor
has made, at the time when the package was handed over to
the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at
destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so
requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum
not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that the
sum is greater than the passenger's or consignor's actual
interest in delivery at destination.
(b) In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of
registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained
therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in
determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is
limited shall be only the total weight of the package or
packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or
delay of a part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an
object contained therein, affects the value of other packages
covered by the same baggage check or the same air waybill,
the total weight of such package or packages shall also be
taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge
himself the liability of the carrier is limited to five thousand
francs per passenger.  HAND-CARRIED BAGGAGE
4. The limits prescribed in this Article shall not prevent the
court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in
addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other
expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The
foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the
damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses
of litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has
offered in writing to the
plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the
occurrence causing the damage, or before the
commencement of the action, if that is later.
5. The sums mentioned in francs in this Article shall be
deemed to refer to a currency unit consisting of sixty-five and
a half milligrammes of gold of millesimal fineness nine
hundred. These sums may be converted into national
currencies in round figures. Conversion of the sums into
national currencies other than gold shall, in case of judicial
proceedings, be made according to the gold value of such
currencies at the date of the judgment.
 The liability of the carrier for injuries to
passengers under the Warsaw Convention is
25,000 francs. However, by special contract, the
carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher
limit of liability.
 Registered bags and cargoes = 250 francs per
kilogram
 o If the passenger or consignor has made, at
the time when the package was handed
over to the carrier, a special declaration of
interest in delivery at destination and has
paid a supplementary sum if the case so
requires, the carrier will be liable to pay a
sum not exceeding the declare sum,
unless he proves that sum is greater than
the actual value to the consignor at
deliver
 In determining the amount to which the carrier’s
liability, only the total weight of the package or
packages concerned shall be considered except
when the value of other packages covered by the
same baggage check or the same airway bill are
affected, the total weight of such other package or
packages shall also be taken into consideration in
determining the limit of the liability
 With respect to objects which the passenger takes
charge himself, the limit of liability is 5000 francs
per passenger.
The Guatemala Protocol of 1971 increased the limit for
passengers to $100,000 and $1000 for baggage. However,
the Supreme Court noted in Santos III v Northwest Orient
Airlines, et.al. that the Guatemala Protocol is still ineffectiv
Notes from Class:
Liability may be limited when there is death injury or delay,
checked baggage as well as carry-on baggage (objects over
which the passengers have custody referred to under the
Warsaw convention)
There is no provision in Warsaw about the particular
document that is supposed to be given by the carrier in favor
of the passenger who is carrying hand-carried ticket. Only
docs in the Warsaw:
1. passenger ticket
2. baggage check
3. Airway Bill
When is article 22 inapplicable?
1. Willful misconduct under Art. 25. There is no
definition of Art. 25 because that is to be
determined by the SC.
2. When no passenger ticket was not issued (or airway
bill)
3. Or one issued with no statement about application
of Warsaw Convention.
4. Transportation outside of the Convention (see Mapa
v. CA)
a. Place of destination and departure in the
territories of 2 contracting persons
b. Same territory
5. If the passenger declares a higher value.
Notice of Claim
Federal Express v. American Home
The filing of a claim with the carrier within the time
limitation provided either by the airway bill or by the
Warsaw Convention is a condition precedent to the accrual
of a right of action against the carrier for loss or damage to
the goods. In this regard, the Warsaw Convention provides
that a notice of claim must be made within: 1) for BAGS:
within 3 days from date of receipt; 2) for GOODS: within 7
days from receipt; and 3) in case of DELAY: within 14 days
from the date on which the baggage or goods have been
placed at his disposal
Facts:
Smithkline Nebraska delivered to Burlington Air
Express, an agent of Federal Express, a shipment of 109
cartons of veterinary biologicals for delivery to consignee
Smithkline in Makati, Manila. In the airway Bill, the words:
Refrigerate when not in transit and perishable were
stamped on its face. Burlington insured the cargoes with
Home Assurance Company (AHAC). Upon arrival of the
goods, it was discovered that the ELISA reading of the
vaccinates sera are below positive reference serum for the
reason that it was merely stored in a 2-conditioner room
thus without proper refrigeration. Hence, Smithkline
declared a total loss for the goods, abandoned the
shipment and filed a claim against AHAC through Philam,
its representative in the Philippines.
Federal Express claims that Smithkline’s right of
action are already barred by reason of its failure to file a
written notice or complaint with Federal regarding its
claim for damage or loss to the subject cargo within the
period required by the Warsaw Convention and/or airway
bill.
Issue:
WON AHAC has a cause of action against Federal
Express to make it consequently liable for the loss and
damage of the subject cargoes.
Held:
Yes, AHAC has the personality to sue as well as a
cause of action. However, as its claim has not been filed
within the prescribed period provided for under the
Airway Bill, that is: within 14 days from delivery, it can’t
now recover from the loss or damage it has suffered.
Being a condition precedent, the notice must
precede a suit for enforcement. In the present case, there is
neither an allegation nor a showing of respondents’
compliance with this requirement within the prescribed
period. While respondents may have had a cause of action
then, they cannot now enforce it for their failure to comply
with the aforesaid condition precedent
Jurisdiction in Art. 28
Under Art. 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff
may bring the action for damages before:
1. The court where the carrier is domiciled
 2. the court where the carrier has its principal place
of business
3. the court where the carrier has an establishment
by which the contract has been made
4. the court of the place of destination.
Jurisdictional in Character - characterization as jurisdiction
and not a venue provision.
Reason of the SC:
1. The wording of Art. 32, which indicates the places
where the action for damages “must” be brought,
underscores the mandatory nature of Art. 28(1).
2. This characterization is consistent with one of the
objectives of the Convention, which is to “regulate
in a uniform manner the conditions of
international transportation by air”
Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of
such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his
agent at the port of discharge or at the time of the removal
of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to
delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal
shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of
the goods as described in the bill of lading. If the loss or
damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within
three days of the delivery. Said notice of loss or damage may
be endorsed upon the receipt for the goods given by the
person taking delivery thereof. The notice in writing need
not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their
receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection.
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged
from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the
date when the goods should have been delivered: Provided,
that, if a notice of loss or damage, either apparent or
concealed, is not given as provided for in this section, that
fact shall not affect or prejudice the right of the shipper to
bring suit within one year after the delivery of the goods or
the date when the goods should have been delivered.

3. The Convention does not contain any provision  However, the 1 year prescriptive period may be
suspended: if the one-year period is suspended
prescribing rules of jurisdiction other than Art.
by express agreement of the partiesfor in such a
28(1), which means that the phrase “rule as to case, their agreement becomes the law for them.”
jurisdiction” used in Art. 32 must refer only to Art.
28(1).

Filing of the case in the proper venues provided for under

Art. 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention is still required even
if there are allegations of tortious conduct committed
against an airline passenger during the course of the
international carriage. Allegations of tort do not bring the
case outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.
(Lhuillier vs British Airways)

Defense in Article 30
Santos v. Northwest Orient

In the facts petitioner Santos purchased from Northwest

Orient a roundtrip ticket. Bought ticket in San Francisco.
Route: SF  Manila (via Tokyo) and back. Santos filed in
Manila, case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner said his destination was Manila within the
meaning of Warsaw

SC: ultimate destination was San Francisco, Manila only an

agreed stopping place. Northwest Orient was bound to
transport petitioner to San Francisco

Prescription – “in respect of loss or damage”

 “In respect of Loss or Damage” – interpreted by

the Supreme Court as something related to
PHYSICAL damage (not economic, not including
the depreciation of the value of the goods upon
arrival on the port of destination)
 In the case of Liao, there was no such distinction.
Whatever damage that may be suffered by the
consignee or the shipper, there is damage
pursuant to the Hague rules.

 Prescriptive period “in respect of loss or damage”:

One year after the delivery of goods or the date
when the goods should have been delivered

 Applicable Law as to the prescriptive period:

COGSA Section 3 (6)
Article 30
NOTICE OF
1. In the case of carriage to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the definition
DAMAGE (SEC.
set out in the third paragraph of Article 1, each carrier who accepts passengers, luggage or goods is 3(6))
subjected to the rules set out in this Convention, and is deemed to be one of the contracting parties
to the contract of carriage in so far as the contract deals with that part of the carriage which is  Rules:
performed under his supervision. a. Patent
damage:
shipper
2. In the case of carriage of this nature, the passenger or his representative can take action only against should file
the carrier who performed the carriage during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the a claim
with the
case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey. carrier

3. As regards luggage or goods, the passenger or consignor will have a right of action against the first
carrier, and the passenger or consignee who is entitled to delivery will have a right of action against
the last carrier, and further, each may take action against the carrier who performed the carriage
during which the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place. These carriers will be jointly and
severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee.
immediately upon delivery
b. Latent damage: shipper should file a claim with the carrier within
three days from delivery.
 The defense in Article 30 (the limited
liability rule) are the following:
1. If the damage is caused by the carrier’s Note: The filing of a notice of claim is not a condition precedent.
willful misconduct or such default on his
part (Sec. 25, Warsaw Convention)
2. If there is no delivery of adequate PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
transportation documents (e.g.
passenger tickets, airway bill for goods)  Action for loss or damage to the cargo should be brought within one
year after:
(Sec. 3, Warsaw Convention)
3. If it is a transportation outside of the a. Delivery of the goods (delivered but damaged goods); or
Convention (for the carrier to avail of the b. The date when the goods should have been delivered (non-
limited liability, there must be a delivery). (Sec. 3[6])
statement in the ticket that the liability
is subject to the rules under the Warsaw  “Loss or Damage” as applied to the COGSA contemplates a situation
Convention). where no delivery at all was made by the shipper of the goods because
 Bumping off is the refusal to transport the same had perished, gone out of commerce, or disappeared in such
passengers with confirmed reservation, totally a way that their existence is unknown or they cannot be recovered.
foreclosing the passenger’s right to be Thus, it is inapplicable in case of misdelivery or conversion. (Ang vs.
transported. Delay prolongs only the time, merely American Steamship Agencies Inc.) and damage arising from delay or
late delivery (Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. vs. CA). In such instance the,
postpones for a time the enforcement of such right
Civil Code rules on prescription shall apply.
but eventually the person will be transported.
 SC: Article 30 does not contemplate the instance of
bumping off.
 The one-year prescriptive period is suspended by:

1. The express agreement of the parties (Universal Shipping

III. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT/COGSA (C.A. No. 65) Lines, Inc. vs. IAC, 188 SCRA 170)
2. The filing of an action in court until it is dismissed. (Stevens
& Co. vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd, 6 SCRA 180)
APPLICABILITY
 The one-year period shall run from delivery of the last package and
 The transportation must be:
is not suspended by extrajudicial demand. (Dole Phils.,Inc. vs.
1. Water/maritime transportation; Maritime Co.,148 SCRA 118)
2. for the carriage of goods; and
3. overseas/international/foreign (from foreign port to
Philippine port).
 The one-year period shall run from delivery to the arrastre operator
 It can be applied in domestic sea transportation if agreed upon by
and not to the consignee. (Union Carbide Phils, Inc. vs. Manila
the parties. (Clause paramount or paramount clause)
Railroad Co.,SCRA 359)

IMPORTANT FEATURES:
 The insurer exercising its right of subrogation is bound by the one-
1. Amount of carrier’s liability
2. Notice of damage year prescriptive period. However, it does not apply to the claim
3. Prescriptive period against the insurer for the insurance proceeds. (Fil. Merchants Ins. Co.
vs. Alejandro; Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. vs. CA)

AMOUNT OF CARRIER’S LIABILITY

 Under the Sec. 4(5), the liability limit is set at $500 per package or IV. WARSAW CONVENTION OF 1929 (WC)
customary freight unit unless the nature and value of such goods is
declared by the shipper. This is deemed incorporated in the bill of
lading even if not mentioned in it. (Eastern Shipping vs. IAC, 150 SCRA PURPOSE: To protect the emerging air transportation industry and to
463) secure the uniformity of recovery by the passengers.
 Note that Art. 1749, NCC applies to domestic/inter-island/coastwise APPLICABILITY
trade.
 The transportation must be:
1. International transportation;
2. Air transportation; and
3. Carriage of passengers, baggage or goods.
 The WC shall also apply to fortuitous transportation by aircraft
performed by an air transportation enterprise.
3. Delay in the transportation of passengers, baggage or goods. (Art.
19)
Note: The Hague Protocol amended the WC by removing the provision
that if the airline took all necessary steps to avoid the damage, it could
exculpate itself completely (Art. 20(1)). (Alitalia vs. IAC, 192 SCRA 9)

 International transportation - any transportation in which the place LIMIT OF LIABILITY (Art. 22, as amended by Guatemala
of departure and the place of destination are situated either: Protocol, 1971; Alitalia vs. IAC)
1. Passengers
1. Within the territories of two High Contracting Parties regardless
of whether or not there be a break in the transportation or GENERAL RULE: $100,000 per passenger
transshipment, or
EXCEPTION: Agreement to a higher limit
2. Within the 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 the Convention. (“round trip”, Am.
Jur.)

2. Checked-in baggage
 Transportation to be performed by several successive air carriers GENERAL RULE: $20 per kilogram
shall be deemed to be one undivided transportation, if it has been
regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it has been EXCEPTION: In case of special declaration of value and payment of a
agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of supplementary sum by consignor, carrier is liable to not more than the
contracts, and it shall not lose its international character merely declared sum unless it proves the sum is greater than actual value.
because one contract or a series of contracts is to be performed
entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, 3. Hand-carried baggage
mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting Party. (Art. 1
 $1000/passenger
Sec.3)
4. Goods to be shipped

WHEN INAPPLICABLE GENERAL RULE: $20 per kilogram

1. When public policy is contradicted; EXCEPTION: In case of special declaration of value and payment of a
2. If the requirements under the Convention are not complied supplementary sum by consignor, carrier is liable to not more than the
with. declared sum unless it proves the sum is greater than actual value.

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS:
1. Transportation documents  An agreement relieving the carrier from liability or fixing a lower
limit is null and void. (Art. 23)
a. Passenger ticket
b. Baggage check  Carrier is not entitled to the foregoing limit if the damage is caused
c. Air way bill by willful misconduct or default on its part. (Art. 25)
2. Liability of the carrier for damages

a. Death or injury to passengers

b. Loss or damage to baggage or goods  Thus, the WC does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the
c. Delay instances of an absolute limit of the extent of liability. It does not
3. Successive carrier agreement preclude the application of the Civil Code and other pertinent local
laws. It does not regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of
4. Jurisdiction contract by the carrier, or misconduct of its employees, or for some
particular or exceptional type of damage. (Alitalia vs. CA)
5. Combined transportation agreement
 In PanAm v. IAC, the WC was applied as regards the limitation
on the carrier’s liability, there being a simple loss of baggage
PASSENGER BAGGAGE AIR without any improper conduct on the part of the officials or
TICKET CHECK WAYBILL employees of the airline or other special injury sustained by the
passenger.
Passenger Checked-in Goods to be
baggage shipped
 In KLM Royal v. Tuller, the WC has invariably been held
inapplicable, or as not restrictive of the carrier’s liability, where
LIABILITY OF CARRIER FOR DAMAGES
there was satisfactory evidence of malice or bad faith attributable
1. Death or injury of a passenger if the accident causing it took place
to its officers and employees. (Alitalia vs. IAC)
on board the aircraft or in the course of its operations of embarking or
disembarking; (Art. 17) ACTION FOR DAMAGES
1. Notice of claim
2. Destruction, loss or damage to any baggage or goods, if it took
place during the “transportation by air”; (Art. 18) and  A written complaint must me made within:

 Transportation by air – The period during which the baggage or
goods are in the charge of the carrier, whether in an airport or on
board an aircraft, or, in case of a landing outside an airport, in any
place whatsoever.
It includes any transportation by land or water outside an airport if
a. 3 days from receipt of baggage
b. 7 days from receipt of goods
c. In case of delay, 14 days from receipt of baggage/goods
 The complaint is a condition precedent. Without the complaint, the
action is barred except in case of fraud on the part of the carrier. (Art.
26)

such takes place in the performance of a contract for

transportation by air, for the purpose of loading, delivery, or 2. Prescriptive period

transshipment.  Action must be filed within 2 years from:

 a. date of arrival at the destination or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a
b. date of expected arrival foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws
c. date on which the transportation stopped. (Art. 29) shall be observed in their execution.

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and

 In United Airlines vs. Uy the two-year prescriptive period was not
those which have, for their object, public order, public policy
applied where the airline employed delaying tactics.
and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a)
RULE IN CASE OF VARIOUS SUCCESSIVE CARRIERS

1. Carriage of passengers
GENERAL RULE: Action is filed only against the carrier in which the
accident or delay occurred.

EXCEPTION: Agreement or contract whereby the first carrier

assumed liability for the whole journey.

2. Carriage of baggage or goods

a. Passenger or consignor can file an action against the first
carrier and the carrier in which the damage occurred
b. Passenger or consignee can file an action against the last
carrier and the carrier in which the damage occurred.
 These carriers are jointly and severally liable. (Art. 30)

 A contract of international carriage by air, although performed by

different carriers under a series of airline tickets constitutes a single
operation. Members of the International Air Transportation Association
(IATA) are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein they
act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted
passengers to boost ticket sales worldwide and at the same time
provide passengers easy access to airlines which are otherwise
inaccessible in some parts of the world. (American Airlines vs. CA)

 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. The obligation of the former remained and did not
cease even when the breach occurred not on its own flight but on that
of another airline which had undertaken to carry the passengers to one
of their destinations. (China Airlines vs. Chiok)

JURISDICTION
 At the option of the plaintiff, the action for damages may be filed in
the:

a. Court of domicile of the carrier;

b. Court of its principal place of business;
c. Court where it has a place of business through which the
contract has been made; or
d. Court of the place of destination. (Art. 28(1))
NOTE: It is the passenger’s “ultimate destination” not “an agreed
stopping place” that determines the country where suit is to be filed.

 The forum of action provided in Art. 28(1) is a matter of jurisdiction

rather than of venue. (Santos III vs. Northwest; 2A C.J.S.)

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the

status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
(9a)

Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject

to the law of the country where it is stipulated.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with

respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found. (10a)

Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and

other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
country in which they are executed.

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic