PAL v. Savillo Digest

Topic: Air Transportation Ratio: In the petition at bar, private respondent’s Complaint alleged that both PAL and
io: In the petition at bar, private respondent’s Complaint alleged that both PAL and Singapore
vi. Conditions on Imposition of Liability Airlines were guilty of gross negligence, which resulted in his being subjected to "humiliation,
embarrassment, mental anguish, serious anxiety, fear and distress." The emotional harm
PAL v. Savillo suffered by the private respondent as a result of having been unreasonably and unjustly
GR No. 149547 prevented from boarding the plane should be distinguished from the actual damages which
July 4, 2008 resulted from the same incident. Under the Civil Code provisions on tort, such emotional harm
gives rise to compensation where gross negligence or malice is proven. Singapore Airlines
Chico-Nazario, J: barred private respondent from boarding the Singapore Airlines flight because PAL allegedly
failed to endorse the tickets of private respondent and his companions, despite PAL’s
Facts: Private respondent was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN Seniors Annual Golf assurances to respondent that Singapore Airlines had already confirmed their passage. While
Tournament held in Jakarta, Indonesia. He and several companions decided to purchase their this fact still needs to be heard and established by adequate proof before the RTC, an action
respective passenger tickets from PAL with the following points of passage: MANILA- based on these allegations will not fall under the Warsaw Convention, since the
SINGAPORE-JAKARTA-SINGAPORE-MANILA. Private respondent and his companions were purported negligence on the part of PAL did not occur during the performance of the
made to understand by PAL that its plane would take them from Manila to Singapore, while contract of carriage but days before the scheduled flight. Thus, the present action cannot
Singapore Airlines would take them from Singapore to Jakarta. be dismissed based on the statute of limitations provided under Article 29 of the Warsaw
Convention.
On 3 October 1993, private respondent and his companions took the PAL flight to Singapore
and arrived at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening. Upon their arrival, they proceeded to the Had the present case merely consisted of claims incidental to the airlines’ delay in transporting
Singapore Airlines office to check-in for their flight to Jakarta scheduled at 8:00 o’clock in the their passengers, the private respondent’s Complaint would have been time-barred under
same evening. Singapore Airlines rejected the tickets of private respondent and his group Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention. However, the present case involves a special species
because they were not endorsed by PAL. It was explained to private respondent and his of injury resulting from the failure of PAL and/or Singapore Airlines to transport private
group that if Singapore Airlines honored the tickets without PAL’s endorsement, PAL respondent from Singapore to Jakarta – the profound distress, fear, anxiety and
would not pay Singapore Airlines for their passage. Private respondent tried to contact humiliation that private respondent experienced when, despite PAL’s earlier assurance
PAL’s office at the airport, only to find out that it was closed. that Singapore Airlines confirmed his passage, he was prevented from boarding the
plane and he faced the daunting possibility that he would be stranded in Singapore
Stranded at the airport in Singapore and left with no recourse, private respondent was in panic Airport because the PAL office was already closed.
and at a loss where to go; and was subjected to humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish,
serious anxiety, fear and distress. Eventually, private respondent and his companions were These claims are covered by the Civil Code provisions on tort, and not within the purview of
forced to purchase tickets from Garuda Airlines and board its last flight bound for Jakarta. the Warsaw Convention. Hence, the applicable prescription period is that provided under
When they arrived in Jakarta at about 12:00 o’clock midnight, the party who was supposed to Article 1146 of the Civil Code:
fetch them from the airport had already left and they had to arrange for their transportation to
the hotel at a very late hour. After the series of nerve-wracking experiences, private Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
respondent became ill and was unable to participate in the tournament. (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict.
Upon his return to the Philippines, private respondent brought the matter to the attention of
PAL. His extra-judicial demand to PAL was dated 25 January 1994. On 15 August 1997, Private respondent’s Complaint was filed with the RTC on 15 August 1997, which was
private respondent filed a Complaint for Damages before the RTC seeking less than four years since PAL received his extrajudicial demand on 25 January 1994.
compensation for moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00 and attorney’s fees. Thus, private respondent’s claims have not yet prescribed and PAL’s Motion to Dismiss must
be denied.
PAL filed a Motion to Dismiss. CONTENTION: Said complaint was barred on the ground of
prescription under Section 1(f) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. PAL argued that the Warsaw
Convention, particularly Article 29 thereof, governed this case, as it provides that any
claim for damages in connection with the international transportation of persons is
subject to the prescription period of two years. Since the Complaint was filed on 15 August
1997, more than three years after PAL received the demand letter on 25 January 1994, it was
already barred by prescription.
RTC and CA both ruled in favor of private respondent Griño.
Issue: Whether or not the Warsaw Convention applies in the case at bar.
Held: No, the Warsaw Convention does NOT apply in the case at bar. Hence, the two-year
prescription period is not applicable.

PAL v. Savillo Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

PAL v. Savillo Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Air Transportation Ratio: In the petition at bar, private respondent’s Complaint alleged that both PAL and

RTC and CA both ruled in favor of private respondent Griño.

You might also like