Digest - Alitalia vs. IAC

ALITALIA, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents. [G.R. No. 71929 : December 4, 1990.
] 192 SCRA 9 Facts: Dr. Felipa Pablo an associate professor in the University of the Philippines, and a research grantee of the Philippine Atomic Energy Agency was invited to take part at a meeting of the Department of Research and Isotopes of the United Nations in Ispra, Italy. To fulfill this engagement, Dr. Pablo booked passage on petitioner airline, ALITALIA. She arrived in Milan on the day before the meeting. She was however told by the ALITALIA personnel there at Milan that her luggage was "delayed inasmuch as the same . . . (was) in one of the succeeding flights from Rome to Milan." Her luggage consisted of two (2) suitcases: one contained her clothing and other personal items; the other, her scientific papers, slides and other research material. But the other flights arriving from Rome did not have her baggage on board. By then feeling desperate, she went to Rome to try to locate her bags herself. However, her baggage could not be found. Completely distraught and discouraged, she returned to Manila without attending the meeting in Ispra, Italy. Once back in Manila she demanded that ALITALIA make reparation for the damages thus suffered by her. She rejected Alitalias offer of free airline tickets and commenced an action for damages. As it turned out, the luggage was actually forwarded to Ispra, but only a day after the scheduled appearance. It was returned to her after 11 months. The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. Pablo awarding P20,000 as nominal damages, the Appellate Court not only affirmed the Trial Court's decision but also increased the award of nominal damages payable by ALITALIA to P40,000. Issue [1]: Whether or not the Warsaw Convention should have been applied to limit ALITALIA'S liability. Held [1]: NO. 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 also purports to limit the liability of the carriers in the following manner: 1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 250,000 francs . . . Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability. 2. (a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogramme, unless the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination 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 sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery. (b)In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or delay of a part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same baggage check or the same air way bill, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to 5000 francs per passenger. 4. The limits prescribed . . shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other expenses of litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later. The Warsaw 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, in accordance with the law of the court seized of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct," or "if the damage is (similarly) caused . . by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment." The Hague Protocol amended the Warsaw Convention by removing the provision that if the airline took all necessary steps to avoid the damage, it could exculpate itself completely, and declaring the stated limits of liability not applicable "if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result." The same deletion was effected by the Montreal Agreement of 1966, with the result that a passenger could recover unlimited damages upon proof of wilful misconduct. The Convention's provisions, in short, 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. On the other hand, the Warsaw Convention has invariably been held inapplicable, or as not restrictive of the carrier's liability, where there was satisfactory evidence of malice or bad faith attributable to its officers and employees. 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. Issue [2]: Whether or not Dr. Pablo is entitled to nominal damages. Held [2]: YES. The opportunity to claim this honor or distinction was irretrievably lost to Dr. Pablo because of Alitalia's breach of its contract. Apart from this, there can be no doubt that Dr. Pablo underwent profound distress and anxiety, which gradually turned to panic and finally despair, from the time she learned that her suitcases were missing up to the time when, having gone to Rome, she finally realized that she would no longer be able to take part in the conference. As she herself put it, she "was really shocked and distraught and confused." 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.

Digest - Alitalia vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - Alitalia vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - Alitalia vs. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALITALIA, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents. [G.R. No. 71929 : December 4, 1990.

You might also like