Philippine Airlines v.

Savillo
Facts:
Savillo was a judge of the RTC of Iloilo
He was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEA Seniors Annual !olf
Tourna"ent in #a$arta Indonesia%
So& in order to ta$e part in such event& he purchased a tic$et fro" 'A( with
the following itinerar)* +anila,Singapore,#a$arta,Singapore,+anila%
'A( would ta$e the" fro" +anila to Signapore& while Singapore Airlines
would ta$e the" fro" Singapore to #a$arta%
-hen the) arrived in Singapore& Singapore Airlines rejected the tic$ets of
Savillo .ecause the) were not endorsed .) 'A(% It was e/plained that if
Singapore Airlines honoured the tic$ets without 'A(S0 endorse"ent& 'A(
would not pa) Singapore Airlines for their passage%
Savillo de"anded co"pensation fro" .oth 'A( and Singapore Airlines& .ut
his e1orts were futile% He then sued 'A( after 3 )ears& de"anding "oral
da"ages%
'A( & in its +T2& clai"ed that the cause of action has alread) prescri.ed
invo$ing the -arsaw Convention 3providing for a 4 )ear prescriptive period5%
6oth RTC and CA ruled against 'A(%
Issues:
-hat is the applica.le law& the Civil Code or the -arsaw Convention7 Has the action
prescri.ed7
Held:
The Civil Code is applica.le% Therefore the action has not )et prescri.ed for the
prescription period is 8 )ears%
If cause of action claims moral damages, not covered by Warsa
!onvention. Article 19 of the -arsaw Convention provides for lia.ilit) on the part
of a carrier for 9da"ages occasioned .) dela) in the transportation .) air of
passengers& .aggage or goods% Article 48 e/cludes other re"edies .) further
providing that 9315 in the cases covered .) articles 1: and 19& an) action for
da"ages& however founded& can onl) .e .rought su.ject to the conditions and
li"its set out in this convention%; Therefore& a clai" covered .) the -arsaw
Convention can no longer .e recovered under local law& if the statue of li"itations
of two )ears has elapsed%
evertheless& this Court notes that jurisprudence in the 'hilippines and the <nited
States also recogni=es that the -arsaw Convention does not 9e/clusivel) regulate;
the relationship .etween passenger and carrier on an international >ight%
In <%S% v% <)& this Court distinguished .etween the 315 da"age to the passenger0s
.aggage and 345 hu"iliation he su1ered at the hands of the airline0s e"plo)ees%
The ?irst cause of action was covered .) the -arsaw Convention which prescri.es in
two )ears& while the second was covered .) the provisions of the Civil Code on
torts& which prescri.es in four )ears%
In +ahane) v% Air ?rance 3<S case5& the court therein ruled that if the plainti1 were
to clai" da"ages .ased solel) on the dela) she e/perienced, for instance& the costs
of renting a van& which she had to arrange on her own as a conse@uence of the
dela) the co"plaint would .e .arred .) the twoA)ear statute of li"itations%
However& where the plainti1 alleged that the airlines su.jected her to unjust
discri"ination or undue or unreasona.le preference or disadvantage& an act
punisha.le under the <S law& then the plainti1 "a) clai" purel) no"inal
co"pensator) da"ages for hu"iliation and hurt feelings& which are not provided for
.) the -arsaw Convention%
In the 'etition at .ar& Savillo0s Co"plaint alleged that .oth 'A( and Singapore
Airlines were guilt) of gross negligence& which resulted in his .eing su.jected to
9hu"iliation& e".arrass"ent& "ental anguish& serious an/iet)& fear and distress;
therefore this case is not covered .) the -arsaw Convention%
When the negligence happened before the performance of the contract of
carriage, not covered by the Warsa !onvention. Also& this case is
co"para.le to (athigra v% 6ritish Airwa)s% In that case& it was held that the airlines0
negligent act of reconBr"ing the passenger0s reservation da)s .efore departure and
failing to infor" the latter that the >ight had alread) .een discontinued is not
a"ong the acts covered .) the -arsaw Convention& since the alleged negligence
did not occur during the perfor"ance of the contract of carriage .ut& rather& da)s
.efore the scheduled >ight%
In the case at hand& Singapore Airlines .arred Savillo fro" .oarding the Singapore
Airlines >ight .ecause 'A( allegedl) failed to endorse the tic$ets of private
respondent and his co"panions& despite 'A(0s assurances to Savillo that Singapore
Airlines had alread) conBr"ed their passage% -hile this fact still needs to heard and
esta.lished .) ade@uate proof .efore the RTC& an action .ased on these allegations
will not fall under the -arsaw Convention& since the purported negligence on the
part) of 'A( did not occur during the perfor"ance of the contract of carriage .ut
da)s .efore the scheduled >ight% Thus& the present action cannot .e dis"issed
.ased on the Statue of (i"itations provided under Article 49 of the -arsaw
Convention%