Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 482 views

    Case Digest For Transportation Law

    Uploaded by

    jaychris
    1. Michael and Jeanette Asuncion were denied shore passes to disembark during a layover in Japan on a Japan Airlines flight due to an inconsistency in Michael's passport information. 2. They sued Japan Airlines for damages, claiming the airline failed to fully inform them of travel requirements and detained them at the airport. 3. The court found that Japan Airlines did not breach its contract of carriage, as it had no authority over immigration decisions or ability to verify passport information. As such, Japan Airlines was not liable for any damages claimed by the Asuncions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest For Transportation Law

    Uploaded by

    jaychris
    482 views2 pages
    1. Michael and Jeanette Asuncion were denied shore passes to disembark during a layover in Japan on a Japan Airlines flight due to an inconsistency in Michael's passport information. 2. They sued Japan Airlines for damages, claiming the airline failed to fully inform them of travel requirements and detained them at the airport. 3. The court found that Japan Airlines did not breach its contract of carriage, as it had no authority over immigration decisions or ability to verify passport information. As such, Japan Airlines was not liable for any damages claimed by the Asuncions.

    Original Title

    Case Digest for Transportation Law

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Michael and Jeanette Asuncion were denied shore passes to disembark during a layover in Japan on a Japan Airlines flight due to an inconsistency in Michael's passport information. 2. They sued Japan Airlines for damages, claiming the airline failed to fully inform them of travel requirements and detained them at the airport. 3. The court found that Japan Airlines did not breach its contract of carriage, as it had no authority over immigration decisions or ability to verify passport information. As such, Japan Airlines was not liable for any damages claimed by the Asuncions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    482 views2 pages

    Case Digest For Transportation Law

    Uploaded by

    jaychris
    1. Michael and Jeanette Asuncion were denied shore passes to disembark during a layover in Japan on a Japan Airlines flight due to an inconsistency in Michael's passport information. 2. They sued Japan Airlines for damages, claiming the airline failed to fully inform them of travel requirements and detained them at the airport. 3. The court found that Japan Airlines did not breach its contract of carriage, as it had no authority over immigration decisions or ability to verify passport information. As such, Japan Airlines was not liable for any damages claimed by the Asuncions.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Digest for TRANSPORTATION LAW:Japan Airlines V. Asuncion (G.R No.

    161730, January 28,2005) 449 SCRA 544


    FACTS:

    This petition for review seeks to reverse and set aside the October 9, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals and its January 12, 2004 resolution, which affirmed in toto the June 10, 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61 in Civil Case No. 92-3635. On March 27, 1992, respondents Michael and Jeanette Asuncion left Manila on board Japan Airlines (JAL) Flight 742 bound for Los Angeles. Their itinerary included a stop-over in Narita and an overnight stay at Hotel Nikko Narita. Upon arrival at Narita, Mrs. Noriko Etou-Higuchi of JAL endorsed their applications for shore pass and directed them to the Japanese immigration official. A shore pass is required of a foreigner aboard a vessel or aircraft who desires to stay in the neighborhood of the port of call for not more than 72 hours. During their interview, the Japanese immigration official noted that Michael appeared shorter than his height as indicated in his passport. Because of this inconsistency, respondents were denied shore pass entries and were brought instead to the Narita Airport Rest House where they were billeted overnight. Mr. Atsushi Takemoto of the International Service Center (ISC), the agency tasked by Japans Immigration Department to handle passengers who were denied shore pass entries, brought respondents to the Narita Airport Rest House where they stayed overnight until their departure the following day for Los Angeles. Respondents were charged US$400.00 each for their accommodation, security service and meals. On December 12, 1992, respondents filed a complaint for damages claiming that JAL did not fully apprise them of their travel requirements and that they were rudely and forcibly detained at Narita Airport. Issue: HELD: 1. Whether or not JAL is liable of breach of contract of carriage. 2. Whether or not JAL is liable for moral, exemplary damages, 3. Whether or not the plaintiff is liable for attorneys fee and cost of suit incurred (JAL counterclaim)

    The court finds that JAL did not breach its contract of carriage with respondents. It may be true that JAL has the duty to inspect whether its passengers have the necessary travel documents, however, such duty does not extend to checking the veracity of every entry in these documents. JAL could not vouch for the authenticity of a passport and the correctness of the entries therein. The power to admit or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL. This is not within the ambit of the contract of carriage entered into by JAL and herein respondents. As such, JAL should not be faulted for the denial of respondents shore pass applications. In the Respondents claim that petitioner breached its contract of carriage when it failed to explain to the immigration authorities that they had overnight vouchers at the Hotel Nikko Narita. They imputed that JAL did not exhaust all means to prevent the denial of their shore pass entry applications. JAL or any of its representatives have no authority to interfere with or influence the immigration authorities. The most that could be expected of JAL is to endorse respondents applications, which Mrs. Higuchi did immediately upon their arrival in Narita. Moral damages may be recovered in cases where one willfully causes injury to property, or in cases of breach of contract where the other party acts fraudulently or in bad faith. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, when the party to a contract acts in wanton,

    fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Attorneys fees are allowed when exemplary damages are awarded and when the party to a suit is compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest.[17] There being no breach of contract nor proof that JAL acted in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner, there is no basis for the award of any form of damages. Neither should JAL be held liable to reimburse respondents the amount of US$800.00. It has been sufficiently proven that the amount pertained to ISC, an agency separate and distinct from JAL, in payment for the accommodations provided to respondents. The payments did not in any manner accrue to the benefit of JAL. However, we find that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed JALs counterclaim for litigation expenses, exemplary damages and attorneys fees. The action was filed by respondents in utmost good faith and not manifestly frivolous. Respondents honestly believed that JAL breached its contract. A persons right to litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages. This is especially true when the filing of the case is to enforce what he believes to be his rightful claim against another although found to be erroneous.[ WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The October 9, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals and its January 12, 2004 resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 57440, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the finding of breach on the part of petitioner and the award of damages, attorneys fees and costs of the suit in favor of respondents is concerned. Accordingly, there being no breach of contract on the part of petitioner, the award of actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees and costs of the suit in favor of respondents Michael and Jeanette Asuncion, is DELETED for lack of basis. However, the dismissal for lack of merit of petitioners counterclaim for litigation expenses, exemplary damages and attorneys fees, is SUSTAINED. No pronouncement as to costs.

    You might also like