Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    British Airways Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    Petitioner British Airways failed to fly 93 workers recruited by the private respondent on several occasions due to flight cancellations without notice, prompting the private respondent to demand compensation for damages. While petitioner claimed no contract existed as tickets were not issued, the court held that accepting prepaid payment for the workers' flights constituted a contract to carry the passengers. The essential elements of a contract - consent, object, and cause - existed based on the airline's acceptance of payment to transport the workers from the Philippines to Jeddah. The court affirmed the ruling against British Airways.

    Copyright:

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

    British Airways Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    43 views1 page
    Petitioner British Airways failed to fly 93 workers recruited by the private respondent on several occasions due to flight cancellations without notice, prompting the private respondent to demand compensation for damages. While petitioner claimed no contract existed as tickets were not issued, the court held that accepting prepaid payment for the workers' flights constituted a contract to carry the passengers. The essential elements of a contract - consent, object, and cause - existed based on the airline's acceptance of payment to transport the workers from the Philippines to Jeddah. The court affirmed the ruling against British Airways.

    Original Title

    1. British Airways vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner British Airways failed to fly 93 workers recruited by the private respondent on several occasions due to flight cancellations without notice, prompting the private respondent to demand compensation for damages. While petitioner claimed no contract existed as tickets were not issued, the court held that accepting prepaid payment for the workers' flights constituted a contract to carry the passengers. The essential elements of a contract - consent, object, and cause - existed based on the airline's acceptance of payment to transport the workers from the Philippines to Jeddah. The court affirmed the ruling against British Airways.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    British Airways Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    Petitioner British Airways failed to fly 93 workers recruited by the private respondent on several occasions due to flight cancellations without notice, prompting the private respondent to demand compensation for damages. While petitioner claimed no contract existed as tickets were not issued, the court held that accepting prepaid payment for the workers' flights constituted a contract to carry the passengers. The essential elements of a contract - consent, object, and cause - existed based on the airline's acceptance of payment to transport the workers from the Philippines to Jeddah. The court affirmed the ruling against British Airways.

    Copyright:

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

    BRITISH AIRWAYS v.

    COURT OF APPEALS  Private respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner
    G.R. No. 92288 | February 9, 1993 | Nocon, J. with the RTC Manila.
     RTC ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent for damages to
    NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari which the CA affirmed.
    PETITIONER: British Airways, Inc.
    RESPONDENTS: CA and First International Trading and General Services
    ISSUE & RATIO:
    Whether there was a contract of carriage between the parties as there
    Summary: Petitioner failed to fly workers recruited by the private was no ticket issued to the private respondent’s contract workers –
    respondent to Jeddah on several occasions due to cancellation YES.
    without any prior notice which prompted the private respondent to
    demand for compensation for damages against the airline. Petitioner In this case, the contract “to carry” is the one involved which is consensual
    contends that the private respondent has no cause of action against and is perfected by the mere consent of the parties. The petitioner’s consent
    it there being no perfected contract of carriage. SC held that there thereto was manifested by its acceptance of the prepaid ticket advice (PTA).
    was a contract of carriage between the parties.
    Even if a PTA is merely an advice from the sponsors that an airline is
    Doctrine: There are two aspects in dealing with the contract of authorized to issue a ticket and thus no ticket was yet issued, the fact
    common carriage of passengers, namely: 1) the contract “to carry remains that the passage had already been paid for by the principal of the
    (at some future time),” which contract is consensual and is respondent, and the petitioner had accepted such payment. The cause or
    necessarily perfected by mere consent; 2) the contract "of carriage" consideration which is the fare paid for the passengers exists in this case.
    or "of common carriage" itself which should be considered as a real
    contract for not until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be The third essential requisite of a contract is an object certain. In this contract
    said to have already assumed the obligation of a carrier. “to carry”, such an object is the transport of the passengers from the place of
    departure to the place of destination.
    FACTS:
     First International Trading and General Services received a telex The petitioner was remiss in its obligation to transport the contract workers
    from its principal, ROLACO Engineering and Contracting Services in on their flight despite confirmation and bookings made by the respondent’s
    Jeddah to recruit Filipino workers in its behalf. travelling agent.
     ROLACO paid the Jeddah branch of British Airways, Inc. the airfare
    tickets for 93 contract workers and instructed the petitioner to
    transport the workers to Jeddah on or before March 30, 1981. DECISION:
     Petitioner instructed ADB Travel and Tours, Inc. (its travel agent) to The assailed decision is hereby affirmed with the modification that the award
    book the 93 workers but the latter failed. of actual damages be deleted from said decision. So ordered.
     Private respondent had to borrow money for the purchase of airline
    tickets from other airlines for the 93 workers.
     There were several instances of re-bookings and flight cancellations
    caused by the petitioner from the first week of June 1981 to July 7,
    1981.
     As a result of the incidents, the private respondent sent the petitioner
    a demand letter for compensation for damages it had incurred due to
    the failure of transport of its contract workers despite confirmed
    bookings and payment of travel taxes.
     The counsel of private respondent sent another demand letter
    demanding P350,000 damages and unrealized profit or income.
     ROLACO cancelled the hiring of the remaining recruited workers due
    to the delay in transporting the workers to Jeddah.

    You might also like