Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Cathay Pacific vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mareca Domingo
    Cathay Pacific failed to deliver a passenger's luggage to his destination in Jakarta on time. The passenger, Tomas Alcantara, needed the documents and papers in his luggage for an important business conference the following day. Cathay offered Alcantara $20 as "inconvenience money" but his luggage did not arrive for over 24 hours, and he had to pick it up from the Philippine Embassy rather than his hotel. The court ruled that Cathay breached its contract of carriage by failing to timely deliver the luggage. The court also found that while the Warsaw Convention establishes carrier liability limits in some instances, it does not preclude other laws or exempt the carrier if willful misconduct is shown, as was the case here

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cathay Pacific vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mareca Domingo
    56 views1 page
    Cathay Pacific failed to deliver a passenger's luggage to his destination in Jakarta on time. The passenger, Tomas Alcantara, needed the documents and papers in his luggage for an important business conference the following day. Cathay offered Alcantara $20 as "inconvenience money" but his luggage did not arrive for over 24 hours, and he had to pick it up from the Philippine Embassy rather than his hotel. The court ruled that Cathay breached its contract of carriage by failing to timely deliver the luggage. The court also found that while the Warsaw Convention establishes carrier liability limits in some instances, it does not preclude other laws or exempt the carrier if willful misconduct is shown, as was the case here

    Original Description:

    Cathay Pacific vs. CA

    Original Title

    30. Cathay Pacific vs. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cathay Pacific failed to deliver a passenger's luggage to his destination in Jakarta on time. The passenger, Tomas Alcantara, needed the documents and papers in his luggage for an important business conference the following day. Cathay offered Alcantara $20 as "inconvenience money" but his luggage did not arrive for over 24 hours, and he had to pick it up from the Philippine Embassy rather than his hotel. The court ruled that Cathay breached its contract of carriage by failing to timely deliver the luggage. The court also found that while the Warsaw Convention establishes carrier liability limits in some instances, it does not preclude other laws or exempt the carrier if willful misconduct is shown, as was the case here

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Cathay Pacific vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Mareca Domingo
    Cathay Pacific failed to deliver a passenger's luggage to his destination in Jakarta on time. The passenger, Tomas Alcantara, needed the documents and papers in his luggage for an important business conference the following day. Cathay offered Alcantara $20 as "inconvenience money" but his luggage did not arrive for over 24 hours, and he had to pick it up from the Philippine Embassy rather than his hotel. The court ruled that Cathay breached its contract of carriage by failing to timely deliver the luggage. The court also found that while the Warsaw Convention establishes carrier liability limits in some instances, it does not preclude other laws or exempt the carrier if willful misconduct is shown, as was the case here

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993.

    ]
    CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
    and TOMAS L. ALCANTARA, respondents.
    -

    Tomas L. Alcantara was a first class passenger of Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. on its flight
    from Manila to Hongkong and onward from Hongkong to Jakarta. The purpose of his trip
    was to attend the following day, a conference with the Director General of Trade of
    Indonesia, Alcantara being the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of Iligan
    Cement Corporation, Chairman of the Export Committee of the Philippine Cement
    Corporation, and representative of the Cement Industry Authority and the Philippine
    Cement Corporation.
    He checked in his luggage which contained not only his clothing and articles for personal
    use but also papers and documents he needed for the conference. Upon his arrival in
    Jakarta, respondent discovered that his luggage was missing. When he inquired about his
    luggage from CATHAY's representative in Jakarta, private respondent was told that his
    luggage was left behind in Hongkong. For this, respondent Alcantara was offered $20.00
    as "inconvenience money" to buy his immediate personal needs until the luggage could be
    delivered to him.
    His luggage finally reached Jakarta more than twenty four (24) hours after his arrival.
    However, it was not delivered to him at his hotel but was required by Cathay to be picked
    up by an official of the Philippine Embassy.
    As a result, Alcantara filed his complaint against Cathay with the RTC which rendered its
    decision ordering Cathay to pay Alcantara the corresponding damages. This was affirmed
    by the CA but with increased amount of damages.
    ISSUES:
    1) WON Cathays failure to transport the luggage on time constitutes a breach of
    contract of carriage
    2) WON the Warsaw Convention on the liability of a carrier to its passenger is
    applicable
    HELD:
    1) YES. Cathay breached its contract of carriage with private respondent when it failed to
    deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it being the obligation of a common
    carrier to carry its passengers and their luggage safely to their destination, which includes the
    duty not to delay their transportation, and the evidence shows that petitioner acted
    fraudulently or in bad faith.
    2) NO. Cathay contends that the extent of its liability for breach of contract should be
    limited absolutely to that set forth in the Warsaw Convention. The court did not agree.
    Although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country, being a
    treaty commitment assumed by the Philippine government, said convention does not
    operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for
    breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. The
    Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases and
    under certain limitations. However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of
    the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier
    from liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of
    carriage, especially if wilfull misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found or
    established, which is clearly set forth in this case.

    You might also like