THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 116044-45. March 9, 2000.]

AMERICAN AIRLINES , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

BERNARDO LL. SALAS and DEMOCRITO MENDOZA , respondents.

Quisumbing Torres & Evangelista for petitioner.

Amadeo D. Seno for private respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Private respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila conjunction tickets

from Singapore Airlines for nine cities in different countries with New York as the nal
destination. In Geneva, private respondent bought from petitioner a ticket in exchange for
the unused conjunction ticket for a one-way ticket from Geneva to New York. However,
because of the embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered in Geneva when he was
prevented by petitioner's security o cer from boarding the plane, detained for about an
hour and allowed to board the plane only after all the other passengers have boarded,
private respondent led an action for damages against petitioner in Cebu. Petitioner
moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue and that the ticket issued by petitioner
in Geneva was a separate and distinct contract of carriage from that entered into by the
private respondent with Singapore Airlines in Manila. When its motion was denied,
petitioner presented a deposition of its security o cer taken in Geneva. The trial court
ruled that under the pool partnership agreement among the IATA members, including
Singapore Airlines and American Airlines, the members act as agents of each other in the
issuance of tickets. This decision was a rmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Hence,
this petition. Meanwhile, the security o cer of petitioner subsequently appeared before
the Philippine consul and answered the cross-interrogatories of private respondent. cCEAHT

A contract of carriage although performed by different carriers under a series of

airline tickets constitutes a single operation as members of the IATA act as agents of each
other in the issuance of tickets and that 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. Thus, petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment when it 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.
Venue is deemed waived when a party assailing the same presented evidence
before the trial court.
The subsequent appearance of petitioner's security o cer to answer the cross-
interrogatories of private respondent constitute full compliance with the requisites of the
right of private respondent to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; TRANSPORTATION; WARSAW CONVENTION; HAS FORCE AND

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 EFFECT OF LAW IN COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES WHICH ARE PARTIES THERETO;
CONVENTION APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION. — 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." The contract of carriage entered into by the private
respondent with Singapore Airlines, and subsequently with the petitioner, to transport him
to nine cities in different countries with New York as the nal destination is a contract of
international transportation and the provisions of the Convention automatically apply and
exclusively govern the rights and liabilities of the airline and its passengers. This includes
Section 28 (1) which enumerates the four places where an action for damages may be
brought.
2. ID.; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; MEMBERS
OF IATA UNDER GENERAL POOL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE
IN CASE AT BAR, ALTHOUGH PERFORMED BY DIFFERENT CARRIERS UNDER A SERIES OF
AIRLINE TICKETS, CONSTITUTES A SINGLE OPERATION. — The contract of carriage
between the private respondent and Singapore Airlines although performed by different
carriers under a series of airline tickets, including that issued by the petitioner, constitutes
a single operation. 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.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ACCEPTANCE BY ANOTHER AIRLINE OF UNUSED PORTION OF
CONJUNCTION TICKET AND UNDERTAKING TO TRANSPORT PASSENGER OVER ROUTE
COVERED BY UNUSED TICKET, TACIT RECOGNITION OF COMMITMENT TO ACT AS
AGENT OF PRINCIPAL CONTRACTING AIRLINE; CASE AT BAR. — 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, i.e., 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 petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to take the
place of the carrier originally designated in the original conjunction ticket. The petitioner's
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 petitioner's 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.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NUMBER OF TICKETS ISSUED DOES NOT DETRACT FROM
ONENESS OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; PURPOSE. — The quoted provision of the Warsaw
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Convention Art. 1(3) clearly states that a contract 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. Petitioner's 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.
5. REMEDIAL LAW; MOTION TO DISMISS; WRONG VENUE; WAIVED WHERE
PARTY PRESENTED EVIDENCE. — The third option of the plaintiff under Art. 28 (1) of the
Warsaw Convention e.g., to sue in the place of business of the carrier wherein the contract
was made, is therefore, Manila, and Philippine courts are clothed with jurisdiction over this
case. We note that while this case was led in Cebu and not in Manila the issue of venue is
no longer an issue as the petitioner is deemed to have waived it when it presented
evidence before the trial court.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESS; COMPLIED WITH BY SUBSEQUENT APPEARANCE OF WITNESS BEFORE
PHILIPPINE CONSUL AND ANSWER TO CROSS-INTERROGATORIES TRANSMITTED TO
TRIAL COURT. — The issue raised in SP No. 31452 which is whether or not the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the deposition of the petitioner's security
o cer taken in Geneva to be stricken off the record for failure of the said security o cer
to appear before the Philippine consul in Geneva to answer the cross-interrogatories led
by the private respondent does not have to be resolved. The subsequent appearance of
the said security o cer before the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 19, 1994 and
the answer to the cross-interrogatories propounded by the private respondent was
transmitted to the trial court by the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 23, 1994
should be deemed as full compliance with the requisites of the right of the private
respondent to cross-examine the petitioner's witness. The deposition led by the
petitioner should be reinstated as part of the evidence and considered together with the
answer to the cross-interrogatories.

DECISION

GONZAGA-REYES , J : p

Before us is a petition for review of the decision dated December 24, 1993 rendered
by the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases docketed as CA-G.R. SP nos. 30946 and
31452 entitled American Airlines vs. The Presiding Judge Branch 8 of the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu and Democrito Mendoza, petitions for certiorari and prohibition. In SP no.
30946, the petitioner assails the trial court's order denying the petitioner's motion to
dismiss the action for damages led by the private respondent for lack of jurisdiction
under Section 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention; and in SP No. 31452 the petitioner
challenges the validity of the trial court's order striking off the record the deposition of the
petitioner's security o cer taken in Geneva, Switzerland for failure of the said security
officer to answer the cross interrogatories propounded by the private respondent. prLL

The sole issue raised in SP No. 30946 is the questioned jurisdiction of the Regional
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Trial Court of Cebu to take cognizance of the action for damages led by the private
respondent against herein petitioner in view of Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention. 1 It is
undisputed that the private respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines in Manila
conjunction tickets for Manila - Singapore - Athens - Larnaca - Rome- Turin - Zurich -
Geneva - Copenhagen - New York. The petitioner was not a participating airline in any of the
segments in the itinerary under the said conjunction tickets. In Geneva the petitioner
decided to forego his trip to Copenhagen and to go straight to New York and in the
absence of a direct ight under his conjunction tickets from Geneva to New York, the
private respondent on June 7, 1989 exchanged the unused portion of the conjunction
ticket for a one-way ticket from Geneva to New York from the petitioner airline. Petitioner
issued its own ticket to the private respondent in Geneva and claimed the value of the
unused portion of the conjunction ticket from the IATA 2 clearing house in Geneva.
In September 1989, private respondent led an action for damages before the
regional trial court of Cebu for the alleged embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered
at the Geneva Airport when the petitioner's security o cers prevented him from boarding
the plane, detained him for about an hour and allowed him to board the plane only after all
the other passengers have boarded. The petitioner led a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction of Philippine courts to entertain the said proceedings under Art. 28 (1) of the
Warsaw Convention. The trial court denied the motion. The order of denial was elevated to
the Court of Appeals which a rmed the ruling of the trial court. Both the trial and the
appellate courts held that the suit may be brought in the Philippines under the pool
partnership agreement among the IATA members, which include Singapore Airlines and
American Airlines, wherein the members act as agents of each other in the issuance of
tickets to those who may need their services. The contract of carriage perfected in Manila
between the private respondent and Singapore Airlines binds the petitioner as an agent of
Singapore Airlines and considering that the petitioner has a place of business in Manila, the
third option of the plaintiff under the Warsaw Convention i.e. the action may be brought in
the place where the contract was perfected and where the airline has a place of business,
is applicable. Hence this petition assailing the order upholding the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts over the instant action.
Both parties led simultaneous memoranda pursuant to the resolution of this Court
giving due course to the petition.
The petitioner's theory is as follows: Under Art 28 (1) of the Warsaw convention an
action for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff either before the court of
the 1) domicile of the carrier; 2) the carrier's principal place of business; 3) the place where
the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made; 4) the place of
destination. The petitioner asserts that the Philippines is neither the domicile nor the
principal place of business of the defendant airline; nor is it the place of destination. As
regards the third option of the plaintiff, the petitioner contends that since the Philippines is
not the place where the contract of carriage was made between the parties herein,
Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction over this action for damages. The issuance of
petitioner's own ticket in Geneva in exchange for the conjunction ticket issued by
Singapore Airlines for the nal leg of the private respondent's trip gave rise to a separate
and distinct contract of carriage from that entered into by the private respondent with
Singapore Airlines in Manila. Petitioner lays stress on the fact that the plane ticket for a
direct ight from Geneva to New York was purchased by the private respondent from the
petitioner by "exchange and cash" which signi es that the contract of carriage with
Singapore Airlines was terminated and a second contract was perfected. Moreover, the
second contract of carriage cannot be deemed to have been an extension of the rst as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the petitioner airline is not a participating airline in any of the destinations under the rst
contract. The petitioner claims that the private respondent's argument that the petitioner
is bound under the IATA Rules as agent of the principal airline is irrelevant and the alleged
bad faith of the airline does not remove the case from the applicability of the Warsaw
Convention. Further, the IATA Rule cited by the private respondent which is admittedly
printed on the ticket issued by the petitioner to him which states, "An air carrier issuing a
ticket for carriage over the lines of another carrier does so only as its agent" does not
apply herein, as neither Singapore Airlines nor the petitioner issued a ticket to the private
respondent covering the route of the other. Since the conjunction tickets issued by
Singapore Airlines do not include the route covered by the ticket issued by the petitioner,
the petitioner airline submits that it did not act as an agent of Singapore Airlines.
Private respondent controverts the applicability of the Warsaw Convention in this
case. He posits that under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention 3 a carrier may be held
liable for damages if the "accident" occurred on board the airline or in the course of
"embarking or disembarking" from the carrier and that under Article 25 (1) 4 thereof the
provisions of the convention will not apply if the damage is caused by the "willful
misconduct" of the carrier. He argues that his cause of action is based on the incident at
the pre-departure area of the Geneva airport and not during the process of embarking nor
disembarking from the carrier and that security o cers of the petitioner airline acted in
bad faith. Accordingly, this case is released from the terms of the Convention. Private
respondent argues that assuming that the convention applies, his trip to nine cities in
different countries performed by different carriers under the conjunction tickets issued in
Manila by Singapore Airlines is regarded as a single transaction; as such the nal leg of his
trip from Geneva to New York with the petitioner airline is part and parcel of the original
contract of carriage perfected in Manila. Thus, the third option of the plaintiff under Art. 28
(1) e.g., where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract of carriage
was made, applies herein and the case was properly led in the Philippines. The private
respondent seeks a rmance of the ruling of the lower courts that the petitioner acted as
an agent of Singapore Airlines under the IATA Rules and as an agent of the principal carrier
the petitioner may be held liable under the contract of carriage perfected in Manila, citing
the judicial admission made by the petitioner that it claimed the value of the unused
portion of the private respondent's conjunction tickets from the IATA Clearing House in
Geneva where the accounts of both airlines are respectively credited and debited.
Accordingly, the petitioner cannot now deny the contract of agency with Singapore Airlines
after it honored the conjunction tickets issued by the latter. cdrep

The petition is without merit.

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. 5 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". 6 The contract of
carriage entered into by the private respondent with Singapore Airlines, and subsequently
with the petitioner, to transport him to nine cities in different countries with New York as
the nal destination is a contract of international transportation and the provisions of the
Convention automatically apply and exclusively govern the rights and liabilities of the
airline and its passengers. 7 This includes Section 28 (1) which enumerates the four places
where an action for damages may be brought.
The threshold issue of jurisdiction of Philippine courts under Art. 28 (1) must first be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 resolved before any pronouncements may be made on the liability of the carrier
thereunder. 8 The objections raised by the private respondent that this case is released
from the terms of the Convention because the incident on which this action is predicated
did not occur in the process of embarking and disembarking from the carrier under Art 17.
9 and that the employees of the petitioner airline acted with malice and bad faith under Art.
25 (1) 1 0 pertain to the merits of the case which may be examined only if the action has
first been properly commenced under the rules on jurisdiction set forth in Art. 28 (1).
Art. (28) (1) of the Warsaw Convention states:
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 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.

There is no dispute that petitioner issued the ticket in Geneva which was neither the
domicile nor the principal place of business of petitioner nor the respondent's place of
destination.
The question is whether the contract of transportation between the petitioner and
the private respondent would be considered as a single operation and part of the contract
of transportation entered into by the latter with Singapore Airlines in Manila.
Petitioner disputes the ruling of the lower court that it is. Petitioner's 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 petitioner's argument without merit.
Art 1(3) of the Warsaw Convention which states:
"Transportation to be performed by several successive carriers shall be
deemed, for the purposes of this convention, to be one undivided transportation, if
it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it has been
agreed upon under the form of a single contract or a series of contracts, and it
shall not lose its international character merely because one contract or series of
contracts is to be performed entirely within the territory subject of the sovereignty,
suzerainty, mandate or authority of the same High Contracting Party."

The contract of carriage between the private respondent and Singapore Airlines
although performed by different carriers under a series of airline tickets, including that
issued by the petitioner, constitutes a single operation. Members of the IATA are under a
general pool partnership agreement wherein they act as agent of each other in the
issuance of tickets 1 1 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. 1 2 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. 1 3 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 covered by the unused portion of the conjunction tickets, i.e., 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 petitioner thereby assumed the obligation
to take the place of the carrier originally designated in the original conjunction ticket. The
petitioner's 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. 1 4 By
constituting itself as an agent of the principal carrier the petitioner's 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. cdll

The quoted provision of the Warsaw Convention Art. 1(3) clearly states that a
contract 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. Petitioner's 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.
The third option of the plaintiff under Art. 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention e.g., to
sue in the place of business of the carrier wherein the contract was made, is therefore,
Manila, and Philippine courts are clothed with jurisdiction over this case. We note that
while this case was led in Cebu and not in Manila the issue of venue is no longer an issue
as the petitioner is deemed to have waived it when it presented evidence before the trial
court.
The issue raised in SP No. 31452 which is whether or not the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion in ordering the deposition of the petitioner's security o cer
taken in Geneva to be stricken off the record for failure of the said security o cer to
appear before the Philippine consul in Geneva to answer the cross-interrogatories led by
the private respondent does not have to be resolved. The subsequent appearance of the
said security o cer before the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 19, 1994 and the
answer to the cross-interrogatories propounded by the private respondent was
transmitted to the trial court by the Philippine consul in Geneva on September 23, 1994 1 5
should be deemed as full compliance with the requisites of the right of the private
respondent to cross-examine the petitioner's witness. The deposition led by the
petitioner should be reinstated as part of the evidence and considered together with the
answer to the cross-interrogatories.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 30946 is
a rmed. The case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. The
decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP. No. 31452 is set aside. The deposition of the
petitioner's security officer is reinstated as part of the evidence.
LLpr

SO ORDERED.
Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes
1. Convention for the Unification of certain Rules Relating to International Transportation
by Air, otherwise known as the Warsaw Convention.
2. International Air Transport Association.

3. Chapter III Liability of the Carrier.

Art. 17. The carrier shall be 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.
4. Supra.
5. Article 1 (1) This convention shall apply to all international transportation of
persons, baggage, or goods performed by aircraft for hire. It shall apply equally to
gratuitous transportation by aircraft performed by air transportation enterprise.
(2) For the purposes of this convention the expression "international
transportation" shall mean any transportation in which, according to the contract made
by the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there
be a break in the transportation or a transshipment, are situated either within the
territories of two High Contracting Parties, or within the territory of a single High
Contracting Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate, or authority of another power, even though that power
is not a party to this convention. Transportation without such an agreed stopping place
between territories subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of the
same High contracting Party shall not be deemed to be international for the purpose of
this convention.
6. Santos III vs. Northwest Airlines, 210 SCRA 256.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 274.
9. Art. 17. The carrier shall be 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.
10. Art. 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 willful
misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the court to
which the case is submitted, is considered equivalent to willful misconduct. See: Art 22
(1) In the transportation of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger shall
be limited to the sum of 125,000 francs. Where, in accordance with the law of the court
to which the case is submitted, 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.
11. Article 15 of the IATA Recommended Practice states: Carriage to be performed by
several successive carriers under one ticket, or under a ticket and any conjunction ticket
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 issued therewith, is regarded as a single operation.
12. Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines, 64 SCRA 610.
13. CIR vs. BOAC, L-65773-74, April 30, 1987, citing Art. VI, Res. 850 of the IATA.
14. Annexes C and D, pp. 115-116, Rollo.
15. Rollo, pp. 682-689.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com