AIR TRANSPORTATION

by: Calibo, Christine Joy

Del Mundo Maria Fe

A. INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION

The Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, commonly known as
the Warsaw Convention, is an international convention which regulates liability for international carriage of persons,
luggage, or goods performed by aircraft for reward.
Originally signed in 1929 in Warsaw (hence the name), it was amended in 1955 at The Hague, Netherlands, and in
1971 in Guatemala City, Guatemala.
1. Constitutionality
(Santos III v. Northwest)
This case involves the Proper interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, reading as follows:
Art. 28. (1) An action for damage 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.
The petitioner claims that the lower court erred in not ruling that Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention violates the constitutional
guarantees of due process and equal protection.
The Republic of the Philippines is a party to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International
Transportation by Air, otherwise known as the Warsaw Convention. It took effect on February 13, 1933. The Convention was
concurred in by the Senate, through its Resolution No. 19, on May 16, 1950. The Philippine instrument of accession was signed by
President Elpidio Quirino on October 13, 1950, and was deposited with the Polish government on November 9, 1950. The Convention
became applicable to the Philippines on February 9, 1951. On September 23, 1955, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation
No. 201, declaring our formal adherence thereto. "to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and
fulfilled in good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof." 5
The Convention is thus a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government and, as such, has the force
and effect of law in this country.
It is well-settled that courts will assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential
requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional question.
This attitude is based on the doctrine of separation of powers, which enjoins upon the departments of the government a becoming
respect for each other's acts.
The treaty which is the subject matter of this petition was a joint legislative-executive act. The presumption is that it was first
carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was adopted and given the force of law in this country.

a.When Applicable
Article 1(1)
This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward.
It applies equally to fortuitious carriage by aircraft performed by an air transportation enterprise.
2. Liabilities under the Convention
Article 17
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily
injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the
aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

Article 18
1. The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered
luggage or any goods, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.
2. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph comprises the period during which the
luggage or goods are in charge of the carrier, whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a
landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever.
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
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 carriage by air.
Article 19
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, luggage or goods.
(Northwest v. Cuenca)
Petitioner argues that pursuant to those provisions, an air "carrier is liable only" in the event of death of a passenger or
injury suffered by him, or of destruction or loss of, or damage to any checked baggage or any goods, or of delay in the
transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods. This pretense is not borne out by the language of said Articles. The same
merely declare the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. Neither said
provisions nor others in the aforementioned Convention regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier.
Under petitioner's theory, an air carrier would be exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in
bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd.
(Alitalia v. IAC)
Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is made liable for damages for:
a. The death, wounding or other bodily injury of a passenger if the accident causing it took place on board the aircraft or I the course
of its operations of embarking or disembarking;
b. The destruction or loss of, or damage to, any registered luggage or goods, if the occurrence causing it took place during the carriage
by air; and
c. Delay in the transportation by air of passengers, luggage or goods.
The convention however denies to the carrier availment of the provisions which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is
caused by his wilful misconduct, or by such default on his part as is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct. The Convention
does not thus operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of an airline's liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that
liability. It should be deemed a limit of liability only in those cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or destruction,
loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness,
or otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise no
special or extraordinary form of resulting injury.
In the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be ascribed to the employees of petitioner airline; and Dr.
Pablo's luggage was eventually returned to her, belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable damage. The fact is, nevertheless, that
some species of injury was caused to Dr. Pablo because petitioner ALITALIA misplaced her baggage and failed to deliver it to her at
the time appointed - a breach of its contract of carriage. Certainly, the compensation for the injury suffered by Dr. Pablo cannot under
the circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the Warsaw Convention for delay in the transport of baggage.

3. Limitations on Liabilities
Article 22
1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 125,000 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 125,000 francs. Nevertheless,
by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.
2. In the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per
kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special
declaration of the value at delivery 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 that sum is greater than the actual
value to the consignor at delivery.

3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to 5,000 francs
per passenger.
4. The sums mentioned above shall be deemed to refer to the French franc consisting of 65 milligrams gold of
millesimal fineness 900. These sums may be converted into any national currency in round figures.
( Pan Am v. IAC)
A petition was filed by an international air carrier seeking to limit its liability for lost baggage of its passenger.
In the absence of a showing that petitioner's attention was called to the special circumstances requiring prompt delivery of
private respondent Pangan's luggages, petitioner cannot be held liable for the cancellation of private respondents' contracts (the
exhibition of two of the films) as it could not have foreseen such an eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit.
The evidence reveals that the proximate cause of the cancellation of the contracts was private respondent Pangan's failure to
deliver the promotional and advertising materials on the dates agreed upon. For this petitioner cannot be held liable. Private
respondent Pangan had not declared the value of the two luggages he had checked in and paid additional charges. Neither was
petitioner privy to respondents' contracts nor was its attention called to the condition therein requiring delivery of the promotional and
advertising materials on or before a certain date.
With the Court's holding that petitioner's liability is limited to the amount stated in the ticket, the award of attorney's fees,
which is grounded on the alleged unjustified refusal of petitioner to satisfy private respondent's just and valid claim, loses support and
must be set aside.

4. When Limitations Unavailable

Article 3
1. For the carriage of passengers the carrier must deliver a passenger ticket which shall contain the following
particulars:(a) the place and date of issue;
(b) the place of departure and of destination;
(c) the agreed stopping places, provided that the carrier may reserve the right to alter the stopping places in
case of necessity, and that if he exercises that right, the alteration shall not have the effect of depriving the
carriage of its international character;
(d) the name and address of the carrier or carriers;
(e) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this Convention.
2. The absence, irregularity or loss of the passenger ticket does not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of
carriage, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this Convention. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a
passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of
this Convention which exclude or limit his liability.
Article 25
1. The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude or limit his liability,
if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the Court
seised of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct.
2. Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by
any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment.
(TWA vs. CA)
Private respondent had a first class ticket for Flight No. 41 of petitioner from New York to San Francisco on April 20, 1979.
It was twice confirmed and yet respondent unceremoniously told him that there was no first class seat available for him and that he
had to be downgraded to the economy class. As he protested, he was arrogantly threatened by one Mr. Braam. Worst still, while he
was waiting for the flight, he saw that several Caucasians who arrived much later were accommodated in first class seats when the
other passengers did not show up.
The discrimination is obvious and the humiliation to which private respondent was subjected is undeniable. Consequently, the
award of moral and exemplary damages by the respondent court is in order.

Indeed, private respondent had shown that the alleged switch of planes from a Lockheed 1011 to a smaller Boeing 707 was
because there were only 138 confirmed economy class passengers who could very well be accommodated in the smaller plane and not
because of maintenance problems.
Petitioner sacrificed the comfort of its first class passengers including private respondent Vinluan for the sake of economy.
Such inattention and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their
convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages. More so in this case where instead of
courteously informing private respondent of his being downgraded under the circumstances, he was angrily rebuffed by an employee
of petitioner.
At the time of this unfortunate incident, the private respondent was a practicing lawyer, a senior partner of a big law firm in
Manila. He was a director of several companies and was active in civic and social organizations in the Philippines. Considering the
circumstances of this case and the social standing of private respondent in the community, he is entitled to the award of moral and
exemplary damages. However, the moral damages should be reduced to P300,000.00, and the exemplary damages should be reduced
to P200,000.00. This award should be reasonably sufficient to indemnify private respondent for the humiliation and embarrassment
that he suffered and to serve as an example to discourage the repetition of similar oppressive and discriminatory acts.

5. Conditions on Imposition of Liability

Article 26
1. Receipt by the person entitled to delivery of luggage or goods without complaint is prima facie evidence that the same
have been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of carriage.
2. In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the
damage, and, at the latest, within three days from the date of receipt in the case of luggage and seven days from the
date of receipt in the case of goods. In the case of delay the complaint must be made at the latest within fourteen days
from the date on which the luggage or goods have been placed at his disposal.
3. Every complaint must be made in writing upon the document of carriage or by separate notice in writing despatched
within the times aforesaid.
4. Failing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on his part.
Article 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 having jurisdiction where the carrier is ordinarily resident, or has his
principal place of business, or has an establishment by which the contract has been made or before the Court
having jurisdiction at the place of destination.
2. Questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the Court seised of the case.
Article 29
1. The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years, reckoned from the date of
arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the
carriage stopped.
2. The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seised of the case.
( Luna v. CA)
From the facts, it appears that private respondent Northwest Airlines indeed failed to deliver petitioners' baggage at the
designated time and place. For this, all that respondent carrier could say was that "[w]e exerted all efforts to comply with this
condition of the contract." Hence, it is evident that petitioners suffered some special specie of injury for which they should rightly be
compensated. Private respondent cannot be allowed to escape liability by seeking refuge in the argument that the trial courts' orders
have attained finality due to petitioners failure to move for reconsideration or to file a timely appeal therefrom. Technicalities should
be disregarded if only to render to the respective parties that which is their due. Thus, although We have said that certiorari cannot be
a substitute for a lapsed appeal, We have, time and again, likewise held that where a rigid application of that rule will result in a
manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, the rule may be relaxed. Hence, considering the broader and primordial interests of justice,
particularly when there is grave abuse of discretion, thus impelling occasional departure from the general rule that the extraordinary
writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, respondent appellate court may legally entertain the special civil action
for certiorari.
Previously, We ruled that the Warsaw Convention was a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine
government; consequently, it has the force and effect of law in this country. But, in the same token, We are also aware of

jurisprudence that the Warsaw Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring an airline liable
for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. The Convention merely declares the carrier
liable for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. For sure, it does not regulate the liability,
much less exempt, the carrier for violating the rights of others which must simply be respected in accordance with their contracts of
carriage. The application of the Convention must not therefore be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other
pertinent laws. In fact, in Alitalia v. IAC, We awarded Dr. Felipa Pablo nominal damages, the provisions of the Convention
notwithstanding.
Hence, petitioners' alleged failure to file a claim with the common carrier as mandated by the provisions of the Warsaw
Convention should not be a ground for the summary dismissal of their complaints since private respondent may still be held liable for
breach of other relevant laws which may provide a different period or procedure for filing a claim. Considering that petitioners indeed
filed a claim which private respondent admitted having received on 21 June, 1989, their demand may have very well been filed within
the period prescribed by those applicable laws. Consequently, respondent trial courts, as well as respondent appellate court, were in
error when they limited themselves to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention and disregarding completely the provisions of the
Civil Code.
We are unable to agree however with petitioners that Art. 25 of the Convention operations to exclude the other provisions of
the Convention if damage is caused by the common carrier's willful misconduct. As correctly pointed out by private respondent, Art.
25 refers only to the monetary ceiling on damages found in Art. 22 should damage be caused by the carrier's willful misconduct.
Hence, only the provisions of Art. 22 limiting the carrier's liability and imposing a monetary ceiling in case of willful misconduct on
its part that the carrier cannot invoke. This issue however has become academic in the light of our ruling that the trial courts erred in
dismissing petitioners' respective complaints.
We are not prepared to subscribed to petitioners' argument that the failure of private respondent to deliver their luggage at the
designated time and place amounted ipso facto to willful misconduct. For willful misconduct to exist, there must be a showing that the
acts complained of were impelled by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of one's rights. It must be
evidenced by a flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper conduct.
( Lhuillier vs. British Airways)
The Warsaw Convention applies because the air travel, where the alleged tortious conduct occurred, was between the United
Kingdom and Italy, which are both signatories to the Warsaw Convention.
Thus, when the place of departure and the place of destination in a contract of carriage are situated within the territories of
two High Contracting Parties, said carriage is deemed an "international carriage". The High Contracting Parties referred to herein were
the signatories to the Warsaw Convention and those which subsequently adhered to it.
In the case at bench, petitioners place of departure was London, United Kingdom while her place of destination was Rome,
Italy. Both the United Kingdom and Italy signed and ratified the Warsaw Convention. As such, the transport of the petitioner is
deemed to be an "international carriage" within the contemplation of the Warsaw Convention.
Since the Warsaw Convention applies in the instant case, then the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is
governed by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention.
Under Article 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; or
4. the court of the place of destination.
In this case, it is not disputed that respondent is a British corporation domiciled in London, United Kingdom with London as
its principal place of business. Hence, under the first and second jurisdictional rules, the petitioner may bring her case before the
courts of London in the United Kingdom. In the passenger ticket and baggage check presented by both the petitioner and respondent,
it appears that the ticket was issued in Rome, Italy. Consequently, under the third jurisdictional rule, the petitioner has the option to
bring her case before the courts of Rome in Italy. Finally, both the petitioner and respondent aver that the place of destination is Rome,
Italy, which is properly designated given the routing presented in the said passenger ticket and baggage check. Accordingly, petitioner
may bring her action before the courts of Rome, Italy. We thus find that the RTC of Makati correctly ruled that it does not have
jurisdiction over the case filed by the petitioner.

( PAL v. Savillo)
In the case at hand, Singapore Airlines barred private respondent from boarding the Singapore Airlines flight because PAL
allegedly failed to endorse the tickets of private respondent and his companions, despite PALs assurances to respondent that
Singapore Airlines had already confirmed their passage. While this fact still needs to be heard and established by adequate proof
before the RTC, 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 present
action cannot be dismissed based on the statute of limitations provided under Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention.
Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the airlines delay in transporting their passengers, the private
respondents Complaint would have been time-barred under Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention. However, the present case involves
a special species of injury resulting from the failure of PAL and/or Singapore Airlines to transport private respondent from Singapore
to Jakarta the profound distress, fear, anxiety and humiliation that private respondent experienced when, despite PALs earlier
assurance that Singapore Airlines confirmed his passage, he was prevented from boarding the plane and he faced the daunting
possibility that he would be stranded in Singapore Airport because the PAL office was already closed.
These claims are covered by the Civil Code provisions on tort, and not within the purview of the Warsaw Convention. Hence,
the applicable prescription period is that provided under Article 1146 of the Civil Code:
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict.
(United Airlines v. Uy)
Within our jurisdiction we have held that the Warsaw Convention can be applied, or ignored, depending on the peculiar facts
presented by each case. Thus, we have ruled that the Convention's provisions do not regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of
contract by the carrier or misconduct of its officers and employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage. Neither may
the Convention be invoked to justify the disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage resulting to a passenger and preclude
recovery therefor beyond the limits set by said Convention. Likewise, we have held that the Convention does not 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 its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carrier's
employees is found or established.
Respondent's complaint reveals that he is suing on two (2) causes of action: (a) the shabby and humiliating treatment he
received from petitioner's employees at the San Francisco Airport which caused him extreme embarrassment and social humiliation;
and, (b) the slashing of his luggage and the loss of his personal effects amounting to US $5,310.00.
While his second cause of action - an action for damages arising from theft or damage to property or goods - is well within
the bounds of the Warsaw Convention, his first cause of action -an action for damages arising from the misconduct of the airline
employees and the violation of respondent's rights as passenger - clearly is not.
Consequently, insofar as the first cause of action is concerned, respondent's failure to file his complaint within the two (2)year limitation of the Warsaw Convention does not bar his action since petitioner airline may still be held liable for breach of other
provisions of the Civil Code which prescribe a different period or procedure for instituting the action, specifically, Art. 1146 thereof
which prescribes four (4) years for filing an action based on torts.
As for respondent's second cause of action, indeed the travaux preparatories of the Warsaw Convention reveal that the
delegates thereto intended the two (2)-year limitation incorporated in Art. 29 as an absolute bar to suit and not to be made subject to
the various tolling provisions of the laws of the forum. This therefore forecloses the application of our own rules on interruption of
prescriptive periods. Article 29, par. (2), was intended only to let local laws determine whether an action had been commenced within
the two (2)-year period, and within our jurisdiction an action shall be deemed commenced upon the filing of a complaint. Since it is
indisputable that respondent filed the present action beyond the two (2)-year time frame his second cause of action must be barred.
Nonetheless, it cannot be doubted that respondent exerted efforts to immediately convey his loss to petitioner, even employed the
services of two (2) lawyers to follow up his claims, and that the filing of the action itself was delayed because of petitioner's evasion.

B. PASSENGERS RIGHTS
Joint DOTC-DTI ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.01 SERIES of 2012
I.

RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION BEFORE

PURCHASE

Section 4. Right to Full, Fair, and Clear Disclosure of the Service Offered and All the Terms and Conditions of the
Contract of Carriage. Every passenger shall, before purchasing any ticket for a contract of carriage by the air carrier or its
agents, be entitled to the full, fair, and clear disclosure of all the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage about to
be purchased. The disclosure shall include, among others, documents required to be presented at check-in, provisions on
check-in deadlines, refund and rebooking policies, and procedures and responsibility for delayed and/or cancelled flights.
These terms and conditions may include liability limitations, claim-filing deadlines, and other crucial conditions.
4.1 An air carrier shall cause the disclosure under this Section to be printed on or attached to the passenger ticket and/or
boarding pass, or the incorporation of such terms and conditions of carriage by reference. Incorporation by reference
means that the ticket and/or boarding pass shall clearly state that the complete terms and conditions of carriage are
available for perusal and/or review on the air carriers website, or in some other document that may be sent to or delivered
by post or electronic mail to the passenger upon his/her request.
4.2 The air carrier must also ensure that passengers receive an explanation of key terms identified on the ticket from any
location where the carriers tickets are sold, including travel agencies. In case of online bookings, the air carrier must
establish a system wherein the purchaser is fully apprised of the required disclosures under this Section twice prior to the
final submission of his/her online offer to purchase.
4.3 Aside from the printing and/or publication of the above disclosures, the same shall likewise be verbally explained to
the passenger by the air carrier and/or its agent/s in English and Filipino, or in a language that is easily understood by the
purchaser, placing emphasis on the limitations and/or restrictions attached to the ticket.
4.4 The key terms of a contract of carriage, which should include, among others, the rebooking, refunding, baggage
allowance and check-in policies, must be provided to a passenger and shall substantially be stated in the following manner
and, if done in print, must be in bold letters:
(English)
NOTICE:
The ticket that you are purchasing is subject to the following conditions/restrictions:
1.
_______________
2.
_______________
3.
_______________
Your purchase of this ticket becomes a binding contract on your part to follow the terms and conditions of the ticket and
of the flight. Depending on the fare rules applicable to your ticket, non-use of the same may result in forfeiture of the fare
or may subject you to the payment of penalties and additional charges if you wish to change or cancel your booking.
For more choices and/or control in your flight plans, please consider other fare types.
(Filipino)
PAALALA:
Ang tiket na ito ay binibili ninyo nang may mga kondisyon/ restriksyon:
1.
________________
2.
________________
3.
________________
Sa pagpili at pagbili ng tiket na ito, kayo ay sumasang-ayon sa mga kondisyon at restriksyon na nakalakip dito, bilang
kontrata ninyo sa air carrier. Depende sa patakarang angkop sa iyong tiket, ang hindi paggamit nito ay maaaring
magresulta sa pagwawalang bisa sa inyong tiket o sa paniningil ng karagdagang bayad kung nais ninyong baguhin o
kanselahin ang inyong tiket.
Para sa mas maraming pagpipilian at malawak na control sa inyong flight, inaanyayahan kayong bumili ng iba pang
klase ng tiket galing sa air carrier.

4.5 Any violation of the afore-stated provisions shall be a ground for the denial of subsequent applications for approval of
promotional fare, or for the suspension or recall of the approval made on the advertised fare/rate.

Section 5. Right to Clear and Non-Misleading Advertisements of, and Important Reminders Regarding
Fares. Advertisements of fares shall be clear and not misleading.
5.1 Major restrictions, such as those on rebookability or refundability, which may be attached to certain fare types, shall
be disclosed in full and in such a way that the passenger may fully understand the consequences of purchasing such tickets
and the effect of non-use thereof.
5.2 Every air carrier causing the publication of fare advertisements in any medium, shall likewise disclose the following:
(a) Conditions and restrictions attached to the fare type;
(b) Refund and rebooking policies, if any;
(c) Baggage allowance policies;
(d) Government taxes and fuel surcharges;
(e) Other mandatory fees and charges;
(f) Contact details of the carrier (i.e. phone number, website, e-mail, etc.); and
(g) Other information necessary to apprise the passenger of the conditions and the full/total price of the ticket
purchased.
Provided, that, in case of promotional fares, the additional information shall be included:
(h) Number of seats offered on a per sector basis;
(i) The duration of the promo; and
(j) The CAB Approval No. of Fares.
Provided, further, that, where there are differing conditions, such as fuel surcharge in relation to the points of
destinations or origin, the advertisements of these carriers may provide only the range thereof and not the
actual surcharge of each route.
5.3 The above-mentioned required disclosures shall occupy not less than one-third (1/3) of the advertising material. A
copy of the same shall be printed on or attached to the ticket in English and Filipino.
In the case of broadcast media, it shall be enough that the air carrier and/or advertising agent incorporate the foregoing
terms and conditions by reference, as provided for in Section 4.1.
Section 6. Right Against Misleading and Fraudulent Sales Promotion Practices. Consistent with the declared policy of
the State to protect the interests of the consumers, which includes protection from misleading and fraudulent sales
promotion practices, all sales promotion campaigns and activities of air carriers shall be carried out with honesty,
transparency and fairness, and in accordance with the requirements of the Consumer Act of the Philippines, and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Air carriers shall provide to DTI a copy of its promotional materials for post audit not later than the publication, release,
or launch date whichever is earlier.
It is understood that professional authorities for those engaged in advertising, sales and promotion may impose additional
standards or measures to regulate their industry.
II. RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE FULL VALUE OF THE SERVICE PURCHASED
Section 7. Right to Transportation and Baggage Conveyance. Every passenger is entitled to transportation, baggage
conveyance and ancillary services, in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract of carriage with the air carrier.
Thus, any violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage due to the fault or negligence of the air carrier
shall entitle the passenger to compensation or alternative arrangements, as provided in this Air Passenger Bill of Rights,
which are acceptable to the passenger.
Section 8. Right to be Processed for Check-In. In accordance with the usual air carrier procedures, a passenger holding a
confirmed ticket, whether promotional or regular, with complete documentary requirements, and who has complied with
the check-in procedures, shall be processed accordingly at the check-in counter within the check-in deadline. The airline
shall, therefore, and subject to infrastructure limitations, clearly designate the boundaries of its assigned check-in area/s or
counter/s.
A passenger within the air carriers cordoned or other designated check-in area as herein defined at least one (1) hour
before the published ETD shall not be considered late or a no-show, and shall not be denied check-in. The carrier shall

exert utmost diligence in ensuring that passengers within the cordoned or other designated check-in area and/or lined up at
the check-in counters are checked in for their flights before the check-in deadline.
A passenger who is late in accordance with the preceding paragraph may be denied check-in and directed to a standby or
rebooking counter, as the case may be, for proper processing.
Any dispute under this Section shall be resolved by the air carrier on-site. For this purpose, the air carrier must present to
the passenger proof, including, but not limited to, closed-circuit television monitor recordings, processing or number slips
issued at the entrance of the check-in area, and other applicable or available means, that the latter failed to appear within
the prescribed time for the check-in procedure.
Section 9. Right to Sufficient Processing Time. Passengers shall be given enough time before the published ETD within
which to go through the check-in and final security processes. For this purpose, air carriers operating in international
airports and in other airports designated by the DOTC shall open their check-in counters in such airports at least two (2)
hours before the ETD. In other airports, air carriers shall open their check-in counters at least one (1) hour before the
ETD.
9.1 Air carriers operating in international airports and in other airports designated by the DOTC shall open a separate
dedicated counter for a flight nearing check-in deadline to facilitate the checking in of passengers at least one (1) hour
before the published ETD.
9.2 To ensure that PWDs and senior citizens shall have equal access to air transportation services, air carriers shall at all
times and in all instances adhere to the mandate of Batas Pambansa Blg. 344, otherwise known as An Act to Enhance the
Mobility of Disabled Persons by Requiring Certain Buildings, Institutions, Establishments and Public Utilities to Install
Facilities and Other Devices, the provisions of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010, and other related laws.
Accordingly, an air carrier shall designate at least one (1) check-in counter which will prioritize PWDs, senior citizens,
and persons requiring special assistance or handling. If this is not practicable, the air carrier shall instead provide for
priority handling and processing of such passengers. The air carrier shall likewise coordinate with the appropriate
authorities for the use of proper airport equipment, entryways, and/or aerobridges, as the case may be, when the same are
available, to facilitate transactions, movement, boarding, and/or disembarkation of PWDs, senior citizens, and/or persons
requiring special equipment, at the airport.
Persons accompanying a PWD, a senior citizen, or a person requiring special assistance or handling should also be
accommodated at the designated check-in counter mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is the duty of an air carrier or
its authorized agent to inform its passengers if additional costs will be incurred for the use of facilities designed for
passengers needing special assistance in airports located in other countries.
It is the responsibility of a PWD to declare his/her need for special assistance or handling to the airline, upon booking
his/her flight. If the PWD fails to do so, the airline may not be held liable for any services it was not able to provide the
passenger and/or for any additional costs incurred for the use of special assistance facilities.
Section 10. Right to Board Aircraft for the Purpose of Flight. A passenger checked in for a particular flight has the right
to board the aircraft for the purpose of flight, except when there is legal or other valid cause, such as, but not limited to,
immigration issues, safety and security, health concerns, non-appearance at the boarding gate at the appointed boarding
time, or government requisition of space as provided for in Section 10.2. Other than these causes, no passenger may be
denied boarding without his/her consent.
10.1 While it is an accepted practice for an air carrier to overbook its flights, any expense, consequence, or inconvenience
caused to affected passengers must be borne by the air carrier, as follows:
(a) The air carrier shall determine the number of passengers in excess of the actual seat capacity of the
aircraft.
(b) The air carrier shall announce that the flight is overbooked, and that it is looking for volunteers willing to
give up their seats in exchange for air carrier compensation.
(c) The air carrier shall provide the interested passengers or volunteers a list of amenities and offers, which
they can choose from, which list of amenities shall always include the option to be given priority booking in
the next flight with available space or to be endorsed to another air carrier upon payment of any fare
difference, and provided that space and other circumstances permit such accommodation, at the option of the
passenger, and/or a cash incentive.

(d) In case the number of volunteers is not enough to resolve the overbooking, the air carrier shall increase the
compensation package by certain degrees or by adding more amenities/services until the required number of
volunteers is met.
10.2 Government agencies and/or officials wanting to acquire aircraft space for official government purposes shall submit
a written request justifying the requisition to the CAB, which shall then make the request to the air carrier concerned,
detailing:
(a) The number, identities, and affiliation of the persons requesting for space;
(b) The date and time (if applicable) of the flight; and
(c) The destination.
Should government requisition result in passengers having to forego their confirmed space, the air carrier shall look for
volunteers in accordance with Section 10.1.
Provided, that the air carrier shall have the right to claim from the requesting government entity the full-fare value of the
seats requisitioned by the latter.
10.3 The settling of compensation for passengers pursuant to this Section shall not be an excuse for the undue delay of the
flights ETD.
III.

RIGHT TO COMPENSATION

Section 11. Right to Compensation and Amenities in Case of Cancellation of Flight. In case of cancellation of flights,
the following shall be observed:
11.1 In case of flight cancellation attributable to the carrier, a passenger shall have the right to:
(a) Be notified beforehand via public announcement, written/published notice and flight status update service
(text);
(b) Be provided with the following, if he/she is already at the airport at the time of the announcement of the
flight cancellation: sufficient refreshments or meals (e.g. snacks consisting of at least a bottle of water and a
sandwich, or breakfast, lunch, or dinner, or a voucher for the same, as the case may be); hotel accommodation
(conveniently accessible from the airport); transportation from the airport to the hotel, v.v.; free phone calls,
text or e-mails, and first aid, if necessary; and
(c) Reimbursement of the value of the fare, including taxes and surcharges, of the sector cancelled, or both/all
sectors, in case the passenger decides not to fly the ticket or all the routes/sectors; or
(d) Be endorsed to another air carrier without paying any fare difference, at the option of the passenger, and
provided that space and other circumstances permit such re-accommodation; or
(e) Rebook the ticket, without additional charge, to the next flight with available space, or, within thirty (30)
days, to a future trip within the period of validity of the ticket. However, for rebooking made in excess of the
aforementioned thirty (30) days for a trip likewise within the validity of the ticket, fees and/or fare difference
shall apply.
Provided, that in case a carrier cancels a flight at least twenty-four (24) hours before the ETD, it shall not be liable for the
foregoing amenities, except, it shall be obliged to notify the passenger, and, in accordance with the preceding provisions,
to rebook or reimburse the passenger, at the option of the latter.
11.2 In case the air carrier cancels the flight because of force majeure, safety and/or security reasons, as certified by the
Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, a passenger shall have the right to be reimbursed for the full value of the fare.
11.3 The provisions of this Section shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of cancellation, and shall not
prohibit the air carrier from granting more favourable conditions or recourses, as it may deem appropriate.
Section 12. Right to Compensation and Amenities in Case of Flight Delay and Exceptions Thereto.
12.1 In case of Terminal Delay of at least three (3) hours after the ETD, whether or not such is attributable to the carrier, a
passenger shall have the right to:
(a) Be provided with refreshments or meals (sufficient snacks, breakfast, lunch, or dinner, as the case may be),
free phone calls, text or e-mails, and first aid, if necessary; and

10

(b) Rebook or refund his/her ticket in accordance with the preceding Section or be endorsed to another carrier,
in accordance with the preceding Section.
12.2 In case such Terminal Delay extends to at least six (6) hours after the ETD for causes attributable to the carrier, it
shall be deemed cancelled for the purpose of making available to the passenger the rights and amenities required to be
provided in case of actual cancellation, as provided for in Section 11.1; and in addition, an affected passenger shall be
given the following:
(a) Additional compensation equivalent to at least the value of the sector delayed or deemed cancelled to be
paid in the form of cash or voucher, at the discretion of the air carrier; and
(b) The right to board the flight if it takes place more than six (6) hours after the ETD and the affected
passenger has not opted to rebook and/or refund. For this purpose, the air carrier is obliged to exert all efforts
to contact the passenger for the flight.
12.3 A passenger shall likewise have the right to be provided with sufficient food and beverage, in cases of Tarmac Delay
of at least two (2) hours after the ETD, reckoned from the closing of the aircraft doors, or when the aircraft is at the gate
with the doors still open but passengers are not allowed to deplane.
12.4 The provisions of this Section shall be the minimum entitlement of a passenger in case of delay and shall not prohibit
the air carrier from granting more favourable conditions or recourses, as it may deem appropriate.
Section 13. Compensation under Section 10 as Liquidated Damages. The compensation provided in Section 10, if
accepted by the passenger, shall constitute liquidated damages for all damages incurred by the passenger as a result of the
air carriers failure to provide the passenger with a confirmed reserved seat.
Provided that, while a confirmed reservation is necessary to make a passenger eligible for compensation, a written
confirmation issued by the air carrier or its authorized agent qualifies the passenger in this regard, even if the air carrier
cannot find the reservation in the electronic records, as long as the passenger did not cancel the reservation or miss a
reconfirmation deadline.
Section 14. Right to Compensation for Delayed, Lost, and Damaged Baggage. A passenger shall have the right to have
his/her baggage carried on the same flight that such passenger takes, subject to considerations of safety, security, or any
other legal and valid cause.
14.1 In case a checked-in baggage has been off-loaded for operational, safety, or security reasons, the air carrier shall
inform the passenger at the soonest practicable time and in such manner that the passenger will readily know of the offloading (i.e. that his/her baggage has been off-loaded and the reason therefor). If the passengers baggage has been offloaded, the air carrier should make the appropriate report and give the passenger a copy thereof, even if it had already
announced that the baggage would be on the next flight.
The air carrier shall carry the off-loaded baggage in the next flight with available space, and deliver the same to the
passenger either personally or at his/her residence. For every twenty-four (24) hours of delay in such delivery, the air
carrier shall tender an amount of Two Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00) to the passenger, as compensation for the
inconvenience the latter experienced. A fraction of a day shall be considered as one day for purposes of calculating the
compensation.
For the purposes of this section, the twenty four (24)-hour period shall commence one (1) hour from the arrival of the
flight of the passenger carrying such baggage.
14.2 Should such baggage, whether carried on the same or a later flight, be lost or suffer any damage attributable to the air
carrier, the passenger shall be compensated in the following manner:
(a) For international flights, the relevant convention shall apply.
(b) For domestic flights, upon proof, a maximum amount equivalent to half of the amount in the relevant
convention (for international flights) in its Peso equivalent.
14.3 For compensation purposes, a passengers baggage is presumed to have been permanently and totally lost, if within a
period of seven (7) days, counted from the time the passenger or consignee should have received the same, the baggage is
not delivered to said passenger or consignee.

11

Section 15. Right to Compensation In Case of Death or Bodily Injury of a Passenger. For international flights, in case
of death or bodily injury sustained by a passenger, the relevant Convention and inter-carrier agreement shall apply.
However, for an international carriage performed under the 1966 Montreal Inter-Carrier Agreement, which includes a
point in the United States of America as a point of origin, a point of destination or agreed stopping place, the limit of
liability for each passenger for death, wounding or other bodily injury shall be the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand United
States Dollars (US$75,000.00), inclusive of legal fees and costs. Provided, in the case of a claim brought in a state where
a provision is made for a separate award for legal fees and costs, the limit shall be the sum of Fifty-Eight Thousand United
States Dollars (US$58,000.00), exclusive of legal fees and costs.
For domestic flights, the compensation shall be based on the stipulated amount in the relevant convention which governs
international flights, the same to be given in Peso denominations.
Section 16. Right to Immediate Payment of Compensation. An air carrier liable for any and all compensations provided
by these rules shall make the same available to the affected passenger at the air carriers counters at the airport on the date
when the occasion entitling the passenger to compensation occurred, or at the main office or any branch of the air carrier
at the discretion of the passenger. The air carrier shall tender a check for the amount specified, or cash, or the document
necessary to claim the compensation or benefits mentioned above; Provided, that such document shall be convertible to
cash within fifteen (15) days from the date when the occasion entitling the passenger to such compensation occurred.

12