EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER, Petitioner, vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, Respondent. D E C I S I O N DEL ASTILLO, J.: Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta cum necessitate juris dicendi. Jurisdiction is a power introduced or t!e public "ood, on account o t!e necessit# o dispensin" justice. $ Factual Antecedents On %pril &', &((), petitioner Edna Dia"o *!uillier +led a Complaint & or dama"es a"ainst respondent ,ritis! %irwa#s beore t!e Re"ional -rial Court .R-C/ o 0a1ati Cit#. S!e alle"ed t!at on 2ebruar# &', &((), s!e too1 respondent3s 4i"!t )5' rom *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom to Rome, Ital#. Once on board, s!e alle"edl# re8uested Julian 9allida# .9allida#/, one o t!e respondent3s 4i"!t attendants, to assist !er in placin" !er !and: carried lu""a"e in t!e over!ead bin. 9owever, 9allida# alle"edl# reused to !elp and assist !er, and even sarcasticall# remar1ed t!at ;I I were to !elp all <(( passen"ers in t!is 4i"!t, I would !ave a bro1en bac1=; Petitioner urt!er alle"ed t!at w!en t!e plane was about to land in Rome, Ital#, anot!er 4i"!t attendant, Nic1olas 7erri"an .7erri"an/, sin"led !er out rom amon" all t!e passen"ers in t!e business class section to lecture on plane saet#. %lle"edl#, 7erri"an made !er appear to t!e ot!er passen"ers to be i"norant, uneducated, stupid, and in need o lecturin" on t!e saet# rules and re"ulations o t!e plane. %>ronted, petitioner assured 7erri"an t!at s!e 1new t!e plane3s saet# re"ulations bein" a re8uent traveler. -!ereupon, 7erri"an alle"edl# t!rust !is ace a mere ew centimeters awa# rom t!at o t!e petitioner and menacin"l# told !er t!at ;?e don3t li1e #our attitude.; 6pon arrival in Rome, petitioner complained to respondent3s "round mana"er and demanded an apolo"#. 9owever, t!e latter declared t!at t!e 4i"!t stewards were ;onl# doin" t!eir job.; -!us, petitioner +led t!e complaint or dama"es, pra#in" t!at respondent be ordered to pa# P) million as moral dama"es, P& million as nominal dama"es, P$ million as e@emplar# dama"es, P<((,(((.(( as attorne#3s ees,P&((,(((.(( as liti"ation e@penses, and cost o t!e suit. On 0a# $A, &((), summons, to"et!er wit! a cop# o t!e complaint, was served on t!e respondent t!rou"! Bioleta Ec!evarria, Ceneral 0ana"er o Euro:P!ilippine %irline Services, Inc. < On 0a# <(, &((), respondent, b# wa# o special appearance t!rou"! counsel, +led a 0otion to Dismiss 5 on "rounds o lac1 o jurisdiction over t!e case and over t!e person o t!e respondent. Respondent alle"ed t!at onl# t!e courts o *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom or Rome, Ital#, !ave jurisdiction over t!e complaint or dama"es pursuant to t!e ?arsaw Convention, ) %rticle &'.$/ o w!ic! providesD %n action or dama"es must be brou"!t at t!e option o t!e plainti>, eit!er beore t!e court o domicile o t!e carrier or !is principal place o business, or w!ere !e !as a place o business t!rou"! w!ic! t!e contract !as been made, or beore t!e court o t!e place o destination. -!us, since a/ respondent is domiciled in *ondonE b/ respondent3s principal place o business is in *ondonE c/ petitioner bou"!t !er tic1et in Ital# .t!rou"! Jeepne# -ravel S.%.S, in Rome/E A and d/ Rome, Ital# is petitioner3s place o destination, t!en it ollows t!at t!e complaint s!ould onl# be +led in t!e proper courts o *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom or Rome, Ital#. *i1ewise, it was alle"ed t!at t!e case must be dismissed or lac1 o jurisdiction over t!e person o t!e respondent because t!e summons was erroneousl# served on Euro:P!ilippine %irline Services, Inc. w!ic! is not its resident a"ent in t!e P!ilippines. On June <, &((), t!e trial court issued an Order re8uirin" !erein petitioner to +le !er CommentFOpposition on t!e 0otion to Dismiss wit!in $( da#s rom notice t!ereo, and or respondent to +le a Repl# t!ereon. G Instead o +lin" a CommentFOpposition, petitioner +led on June &G, &((), an 6r"ent E@:Parte 0otion to %dmit 2ormal %mendment to t!e Complaint and Issuance o %lias Summons. ' Petitioner alle"ed t!at upon veri+cation wit! t!e Securities and E@c!an"e Commission, s!e ound out t!at t!e resident a"ent o respondent in t!e P!ilippines is %lonHo I. %nc!eta. Subse8uentl#, on September J, &((), petitioner +led a 0otion to Resolve Pendin" Incident and Opposition to 0otion to Dismiss. J Rulin" o t!e Re"ional -rial Court On October $5, &((), t!e R-C o 0a1ati Cit#, ,ranc! $<&, issued an Order $( "rantin" respondent3s 0otion to Dismiss. It ruled t!atD -!e Court s#mpat!iHes wit! t!e alle"ed ill: treatment su>ered b# t!e plainti>. 9owever, our Courts !ave to appl# t!e principles o international law, and are bound b# treat# stipulations entered into b# t!e P!ilippines w!ic! orm part o t!e law o t!e land. One o t!is is t!e ?arsaw Convention. ,ein" a si"nator# t!ereto, t!e P!ilippines ad!eres to its stipulations and is bound b# its provisions includin" t!e place w!ere actions involvin" dama"es to plainti> is to be instituted, as provided or under %rticle &'.$/ t!ereo. -!e Court +nds no justi+able reason to deviate rom t!e indicated limitations as it will onl# run counter to t!e provisions o t!e ?arsaw Convention. Said ad!erence is in consonance wit! t!e comit# o nations and deviation rom it can onl# be e>ected t!rou"! proper denunciation as enunciated in t!e Santos case .ibid/. Since t!e P!ilippines is not t!e place o domicile o t!e deendant nor is it t!e principal place o business, our courts are t!us divested o jurisdiction over cases or dama"es. Neit!er was plainti>3s tic1et issued in t!is countr# nor was !er destination 0anila but Rome in Ital#. It bears stressin" !owever, t!at reerral to t!e court o proper jurisdiction does not constitute constructive denial o plainti>3s ri"!t to !ave access to our courts since t!e ?arsaw Convention itsel provided or jurisdiction over cases arisin" rom international transportation. Said treat# stipulations must be complied wit! in "ood ait! ollowin" t!e time !onored principle o pacta sunt servanda. -!e resolution o t!e propriet# o service o summons is rendered moot b# t!e Court3s want o jurisdiction over t!e instant case. ?9ERE2ORE, premises considered, t!e present 0otion to Dismiss is !ereb# CR%N-ED and t!is case is !ereb# ordered DIS0ISSED. Petitioner +led a 0otion or Reconsideration but t!e motion was denied in an Order $$ dated Januar# 5, &((A. Petitioner now comes directl# beore us on a Petition or Review on Certiorari on pure 8uestions o law, raisin" t!e ollowin" issuesD Issues I. ?9E-9ER K K K P9I*IPPINE CO6R-s 9%BE J6RISDIC-ION OBER % -OR-IO6S COND6C- CO00I--ED %C%INS- % 2I*IPINO CI-ILEN %ND RESIDEN- ,M %IR*INE PERSONNE* O2 % 2OREICN C%RRIER -R%BE**INC ,EMOND -9E -ERRI-ORI%* *I0I- O2 %NM 2OREICN CO6N-RME %ND -96S IS O6-SIDE -9E %0,I- O2 -9E ?%RS%? CONBEN-ION. II. ?9E-9ER @ @ @ RESPONDEN- %IR C%RRIER O2 P%SSENCERS, IN 2I*INC I-S 0O-ION -O DIS0ISS ,%SED ON *%C7 O2 J6RISDIC-ION OBER -9E S6,JEC- 0%--ER O2 -9E C%SE %ND OBER I-S PERSON 0%M ,E DEE0ED %S 9%BINC IN 2%C- %ND IN *%? S6,0I--ED I-SE*2 -O -9E J6RISDIC-ION O2 -9E *O?ER CO6R-, ESPECI%**M SO, ?9EN -9E BERM *%?MER %RC6INC 2OR I- IS 9I0SE*2 -9E RESIDEN- %CEN- O2 -9E C%RRIER. Petitioner3s %r"uments Petitioner ar"ues t!at !er cause o action arose not rom t!e contract o carria"e, but rom t!e tortious conduct committed b# airline personnel o respondent in violation o t!e provisions o t!e Civil Code on 9uman Relations. Since !er cause o action was not predicated on t!e contract o carria"e, petitioner asserts t!at s!e !as t!e option to pursue t!is case in t!is jurisdiction pursuant to P!ilippine laws. Respondent3s %r"uments In contrast, respondent maintains t!at petitioner3s claim or dama"es ell wit!in t!e ambit o %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention. %s suc!, t!e same can onl# be +led beore t!e courts o *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom or Rome, Ital#. O!r R!"#$% -!e petition is wit!out merit. -!e ?arsaw Convention !as t!e orce and e>ect o law in t!is countr#. It is settled t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention !as t!e orce and e>ect o law in t!is countr#. In Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, $& we !eld t!atD -!e Republic o t!e P!ilippines is a part# to t!e Convention or t!e 6ni+cation o Certain Rules Relatin" to International -ransportation b# %ir, ot!erwise 1nown as t!e ?arsaw Convention. It too1 e>ect on 2ebruar# $<, $J<<. -!e Convention was concurred in b# t!e Senate, t!rou"! its Resolution No. $J, on 0a# $A, $J)(. -!e P!ilippine instrument o accession was si"ned b# President Elpidio Iuirino on October $<, $J)(, and was deposited wit! t!e Polis! "overnment on November J, $J)(. -!e Convention became applicable to t!e P!ilippines on 2ebruar# J, $J)$. On September &<, $J)), President Ramon 0a"sa#sa# issued Proclamation No. &($, declarin" our ormal ad!erence t!ereto, ;to t!e end t!at t!e same and ever# article and clause t!ereo ma# be observed and ul+lled in "ood ait! b# t!e Republic o t!e P!ilippines and t!e citiHens t!ereo.; -!e Convention is t!us a treat# commitment voluntaril# assumed b# t!e P!ilippine "overnment and, as suc!, !as t!e orce and e>ect o law in t!is countr#. $< -!e ?arsaw Convention applies because t!e air travel, w!ere t!e alle"ed tortious conduct occurred, was between t!e 6nited 7in"dom and Ital#, w!ic! are bot! si"natories to t!e ?arsaw Convention. %rticle $ o t!e ?arsaw Convention providesD $. -!is Convention applies to all international carria"e o persons, lu""a"e or "oods perormed b# aircrat or reward. It applies e8uall# to "ratuitous carria"e b# aircrat perormed b# an air transport underta1in". &. 2or t!e purposes o t!is Convention t!e e@pression ;international carria"e; means an# carria"e in w!ic!, accordin" to t!e contract made b# t!e parties, t!e place o departure and t!e place o destination, w!et!er or not t!ere be a brea1 in t!e carria"e or a trans!ipment, are situated eit!er wit!in t!e territories o two 9i"! Contractin" Parties, or wit!in t!e territor# o a sin"le 9i"! Contractin" Part#, i t!ere is an a"reed stoppin" place wit!in a territor# subject to t!e soverei"nt#, suHeraint#, mandate or aut!orit# o anot!er Power, even t!ou"! t!at Power is not a part# to t!is Convention. % carria"e wit!out suc! an a"reed stoppin" place between territories subject to t!e soverei"nt#, suHeraint#, mandate or aut!orit# o t!e same 9i"! Contractin" Part# is not deemed to be international or t!e purposes o t!is Convention. .Emp!asis supplied/ -!us, w!en t!e place o departure and t!e place o destination in a contract o carria"e are situated wit!in t!e territories o two 9i"! Contractin" Parties, said carria"e is deemed an ;international carria"e;. -!e 9i"! Contractin" Parties reerred to !erein were t!e si"natories to t!e ?arsaw Convention and t!ose w!ic! subse8uentl# ad!ered to it. $5 In t!e case at benc!, petitioner3s place o departure was *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom w!ile !er place o destination was Rome, Ital#. $) ,ot! t!e 6nited 7in"dom $A and Ital# $G si"ned and rati+ed t!e ?arsaw Convention. %s suc!, t!e transport o t!e petitioner is deemed to be an ;international carria"e; wit!in t!e contemplation o t!e ?arsaw Convention. Since t!e ?arsaw Convention applies in t!e instant case, t!en t!e jurisdiction over t!e subject matter o t!e action is "overned b# t!e provisions o t!e ?arsaw Convention. 6nder %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention, t!e plainti> ma# brin" t!e action or dama"es beore N $. t!e court w!ere t!e carrier is domiciledE &. t!e court w!ere t!e carrier !as its principal place o businessE <. t!e court w!ere t!e carrier !as an establis!ment b# w!ic! t!e contract !as been madeE or 5. t!e court o t!e place o destination. In t!is case, it is not disputed t!at respondent is a ,ritis! corporation domiciled in *ondon, 6nited 7in"dom wit! *ondon as its principal place o business. 9ence, under t!e +rst and second jurisdictional rules, t!e petitioner ma# brin" !er case beore t!e courts o *ondon in t!e 6nited 7in"dom. In t!e passen"er tic1et and ba""a"e c!ec1 presented b# bot! t!e petitioner and respondent, it appears t!at t!e tic1et was issued in Rome, Ital#. Conse8uentl#, under t!e t!ird jurisdictional rule, t!e petitioner !as t!e option to brin" !er case beore t!e courts o Rome in Ital#. 2inall#, bot! t!e petitioner and respondent aver t!at t!e place o destination is Rome, Ital#, w!ic! is properl# desi"nated "iven t!e routin" presented in t!e said passen"er tic1et and ba""a"e c!ec1. %ccordin"l#, petitioner ma# brin" !er action beore t!e courts o Rome, Ital#. ?e t!us +nd t!at t!e R-C o 0a1ati correctl# ruled t!at it does not !ave jurisdiction over t!e case +led b# t!e petitioner. Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines $' applies in t!is case. Petitioner contends t!at Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines $J cited b# t!e trial court is inapplicable to t!e present controvers# since t!e acts t!ereo are not similar wit! t!e instant case. ?e are not persuaded. In Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines, &( %u"usto Santos III, a resident o t!e P!ilippines, purc!ased a tic1et rom Nort!west Orient %irlines in San 2rancisco, or transport between San 2rancisco and 0anila via -o1#o and bac1 to San 2rancisco. 9e was wait:listed in t!e -o1#o to 0anila se"ment o !is tic1et, despite !is prior reservation. Contendin" t!at Nort!west Orient %irlines acted in bad ait! and discriminated a"ainst !im w!en it canceled !is con+rmed reservation and "ave !is seat to someone w!o !ad no better ri"!t to it, %u"usto Santos III sued t!e carrier or dama"es beore t!e R-C. Nort!west Orient %irlines moved to dismiss t!e complaint on "round o lac1 o jurisdiction citin" %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention. -!e trial court "ranted t!e motion w!ic! rulin" was aOrmed b# t!e Court o %ppeals. ?!en t!e case was brou"!t beore us, we denied t!e petition !oldin" t!at under %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention, %u"usto Santos III must prosecute !is claim in t!e 6nited States, t!at place bein" t!e .$/ domicile o t!e Nort!west Orient %irlinesE .&/ principal oOce o t!e carrierE .</ place w!ere contract !ad been made .San 2rancisco/E and .5/ place o destination .San 2rancisco/. &$ ?e urt!er !eld t!at %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention is jurisdictional in c!aracter. -!usD % number o reasons tends to support t!e c!aracteriHation o %rticle &'.$/ as a jurisdiction and not a venue provision. 2irst, t!e wordin" o %rticle <&, w!ic! indicates t!e places w!ere t!e action or dama"es ;must; be brou"!t, underscores t!e mandator# nature o %rticle &'.$/. Second, t!is c!aracteriHation is consistent wit! one o t!e objectives o t!e Convention, w!ic! is to ;re"ulate in a uniorm manner t!e conditions o international transportation b# air.; -!ird, t!e Convention does not contain an# provision prescribin" rules o jurisdiction ot!er t!an %rticle &'.$/, w!ic! means t!at t!e p!rase ;rules as to jurisdiction; used in %rticle <& must reer onl# to %rticle &'.$/. In act, t!e last sentence o %rticle <& speci+call# deals wit! t!e e@clusive enumeration in %rticle &'.$/ as ;jurisdictions,; w!ic!, as suc!, cannot be let to t!e will o t!e parties re"ardless o t!e time w!en t!e dama"e occurred. @ @ @ @ In ot!er words, w!ere t!e matter is "overned b# t!e ?arsaw Convention, jurisdiction ta1es on a dual concept. Jurisdiction in t!e international sense must be establis!ed in accordance wit! %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention, ollowin" w!ic! t!e jurisdiction o a particular court must be establis!ed pursuant to t!e applicable domestic law. Onl# ater t!e 8uestion o w!ic! court !as jurisdiction is determined will t!e issue o venue be ta1en up. -!is second 8uestion s!all be "overned b# t!e law o t!e court to w!ic! t!e case is submitted. && Contrar# to t!e contention o petitioner, Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines &< is analo"ous to t!e instant case because .$/ t!e domicile o respondent is *ondon, 6nited 7in"domE &5 .&/ t!e principal oOce o respondent airline is li1ewise in *ondon, 6nited 7in"domE &) .</ t!e tic1et was purc!ased in Rome, Ital#E &A and .5/ t!e place o destination is Rome, Ital#. &G In addition, petitioner based !er complaint on %rticle &$GA &' o t!e Civil Code on quasi-delict and %rticles $J &J and &$ <( o t!e Civil Code on 9uman Relations. In Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines, <$ %u"usto Santos III similarl# posited t!at %rticle &' .$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention did not appl# i t!e action is based on tort. 9ence, contrar# to t!e contention o t!e petitioner, t!e actual settin" o Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines <& and t!e instant case are parallel on t!e material points. -ortious conduct as "round or t!e petitioner3s complaint is wit!in t!e purview o t!e ?arsaw Convention. Petitioner contends t!at in Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines, << t!e cause o action was based on a breac! o contract w!ile !er cause o action arose rom t!e tortious conduct o t!e airline personnel and violation o t!e Civil Code provisions on 9uman Relations. <5 In addition, s!e claims t!at our pronouncement in Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines <) t!at ;t!e alle"ation o willul misconduct resultin" in a tort is insuOcient to e@clude t!e case rom t!e compre!ension o t!e ?arsaw Convention,; is more o an obiter dictum rat!er t!an t!e ratio decidendi. <A S!e maintains t!at t!e act t!at said acts occurred aboard a plane is merel# incidental, i not irrelevant. <G ?e disa"ree wit! t!e position ta1en b# t!e petitioner. ,lac1 de+nes obiter dictum as ;an opinion entirel# unnecessar# or t!e decision o t!e case; and t!us ;are not bindin" as precedent.; <' In Santos III v. Nort!west Orient %irlines, <J %u"usto Santos III cate"oricall# put in issue t!e applicabilit# o %rticle &'.$/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention i t!e action is based on tort. In t!e said case, we !eld t!at t!e alle"ation o willul misconduct resultin" in a tort is insuOcient to e@clude t!e case rom t!e realm o t!e ?arsaw Convention. In act, our rulin" t!at a cause o action based on tort did not brin" t!e case outside t!e sp!ere o t!e ?arsaw Convention was our ratio decidendi in disposin" o t!e speci+c issue presented b# %u"usto Santos III. Clearl#, t!e contention o t!e !erein petitioner t!at t!e said rulin" is an obiter dictum is wit!out basis. Relevant to t!is particular issue is t!e case o Care# v. 6nited %irlines, 5( w!ere t!e passen"er +led an action a"ainst t!e airline arisin" rom an incident involvin" t!e ormer and t!e airline3s 4i"!t attendant durin" an international 4i"!t resultin" to a !eated e@c!an"e w!ic! included insults and proanit#. -!e 6nited States Court o %ppeals .Jt! Circuit/ !eld t!at t!e ;passen"erPs action a"ainst t!e airline carrier arisin" rom alle"ed conrontational incident between passen"er and 4i"!t attendant on international 4i"!t was "overned e@clusivel# b# t!e ?arsaw Convention, even t!ou"! t!e incident alle"edl# involved intentional misconduct b# t!e 4i"!t attendant.; 5$ In ,loom v. %las1a %irlines, 5& t!e passen"er brou"!t nine causes o action a"ainst t!e airline in t!e state court, arisin" rom a conrontation wit! t!e 4i"!t attendant durin" an international 4i"!t to 0e@ico. -!e 6nited States Court o %ppeals .Jt! Circuit/ !eld t!at t!e ;?arsaw Convention "overns actions arisin" rom international air travel and provides t!e e@clusive remed# or conduct w!ic! alls wit!in its provisions.; It urt!er !eld t!at t!e said Convention ;created no e@ception or an injur# su>ered as a result o intentional conduct; 5< w!ic! in t!at case involved a claim or intentional in4iction o emotional distress. It is t!us settled t!at alle"ations o tortious conduct committed a"ainst an airline passen"er durin" t!e course o t!e international carria"e do not brin" t!e case outside t!e ambit o t!e ?arsaw Convention. Respondent, in see1in" remedies rom t!e trial court t!rou"! special appearance o counsel, is not deemed to !ave voluntaril# submitted itsel to t!e jurisdiction o t!e trial court. Petitioner ar"ues t!at respondent !as e>ectivel# submitted itsel to t!e jurisdiction o t!e trial court w!en t!e latter stated in its CommentFOpposition to t!e 0otion or Reconsideration t!at ;Deendant Qis at a lossR @ @ @ !ow t!e plainti> arrived at !er erroneous impression t!at it isFwas Euro: P!ilippines %irlines Services, Inc. t!at !as been ma1in" a special appearance since @ @ @ ,ritis! %irwa#s @ @ @ !as been clearl# speci#in" in all t!e pleadin"s t!at it !as +led wit! t!is 9onorable Court t!at it is t!e one ma1in" a special appearance.; 55 In reutin" t!e contention o petitioner, respondent cited *a Naval Dru" Corporation v. Court o %ppeals 5) w!ere we !eld t!at even i a part# ;c!allen"es t!e jurisdiction o t!e court over !is person, as b# reason o absence or deective service o summons, and !e also invo1es ot!er "rounds or t!e dismissal o t!e action under Rule $A, !e is not deemed to be in estoppel or to !ave waived !is objection to t!e jurisdiction over !is person.; 5A -!is issue !as been s8uarel# passed upon in t!e recent case o Carcia v. Sandi"anba#an, 5G w!ere we reiterated our rulin" in *a Naval Dru" Corporation v. Court o %ppeals 5' and elucidated t!usD Special %ppearance to Iuestion a Court3s Jurisdiction Is Not Boluntar# %ppearance -!e second sentence o Sec. &(, Rule $5 o t!e Revised Rules o Civil Procedure clearl# providesD Sec. &(. Boluntar# appearance. N -!e deendant3s voluntar# appearance in t!e action s!all be e8uivalent to service o summons. -!e inclusion in a motion to dismiss o ot!er "rounds aside rom lac1 o jurisdiction over t!e person o t!e deendant s!all not be deemed a voluntar# appearance. -!us, a deendant w!o +les a motion to dismiss, assailin" t!e jurisdiction o t!e court over !is person, to"et!er wit! ot!er "rounds raised t!erein, is not deemed to !ave appeared voluntaril# beore t!e court. ?!at t!e rule on voluntar# appearance N t!e +rst sentence o t!e above:8uoted rule N means is t!at t!e voluntar# appearance o t!e deendant in court is wit!out 8uali+cation, in w!ic! case !e is deemed to !ave waived !is deense o lac1 o jurisdiction over !is person due to improper service o summons. -!e pleadin"s +led b# petitioner in t!e subject oreiture cases, !owever, do not s!ow t!at s!e voluntaril# appeared wit!out 8uali+cation. Petitioner +led t!e ollowin" pleadin"s in 2oreiture ID .a/ motion to dismissE .b/ motion or reconsideration andFor to admit answerE .c/ second motion or reconsiderationE .d/ motion to consolidate oreiture case wit! plunder caseE and .e/ motion to dismiss andFor to 8uas! 2oreiture I. %nd in 2oreiture IID .a/ motion to dismiss andFor to 8uas! 2oreiture IIE and .b/ motion or partial reconsideration. -!e ore"oin" pleadin"s, particularl# t!e motions to dismiss, were +led b# petitioner solel# or special appearance wit! t!e purpose o c!allen"in" t!e jurisdiction o t!e S, over !er person and t!at o !er t!ree c!ildren. Petitioner asserts t!erein t!at S, did not ac8uire jurisdiction over !er person and o !er t!ree c!ildren or lac1 o valid service o summons t!rou"! improvident substituted service o summons in bot! 2oreiture I and 2oreiture II. -!is stance t!e petitioner never abandoned w!en s!e +led !er motions or reconsideration, even wit! a pra#er to admit t!eir attac!ed %nswer E@ %bundante %d Cautelam dated Januar# &&, &(() settin" ort! aOrmative deenses wit! a claim or dama"es. %nd t!e ot!er subse8uent pleadin"s, li1ewise, did not abandon !er stance and deense o lac1 o jurisdiction due to improper substituted services o summons in t!e oreiture cases. Evidentl#, rom t!e ore"oin" Sec. &(, Rule $5 o t!e $JJG Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, petitioner and !er sons did not voluntaril# appear beore t!e S, constitutive o or e8uivalent to service o summons. 0oreover, t!e leadin" *a Naval Dru" Corp. v. Court o %ppeals applies to t!e instant case. Said case elucidates t!e current view in our jurisdiction t!at a special appearance beore t!e courtNN c!allen"in" its jurisdiction over t!e person t!rou"! a motion to dismiss even i t!e movant invo1es ot!er "roundsNNis not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver b# t!e movant o !is objection to jurisdiction over !is personE and suc! is not constitutive o a voluntar# submission to t!e jurisdiction o t!e court.1avvphi1 -!us, it cannot be said t!at petitioner and !er t!ree c!ildren voluntaril# appeared beore t!e S, to cure t!e deective substituted services o summons. -!e# are, t!ereore, not estopped rom 8uestionin" t!e jurisdiction o t!e S, over t!eir persons nor are t!e# deemed to !ave waived suc! deense o lac1 o jurisdiction. Conse8uentl#, t!ere bein" no valid substituted services o summons made, t!e S, did not ac8uire jurisdiction over t!e persons o petitioner and !er c!ildren. %nd perorce, t!e proceedin"s in t!e subject oreiture cases, insoar as petitioner and !er t!ree c!ildren are concerned, are null and void or lac1 o jurisdiction. .Emp!asis supplied/ In t!is case, t!e special appearance o t!e counsel o respondent in +lin" t!e 0otion to Dismiss and ot!er pleadin"s beore t!e trial court cannot be deemed to be voluntar# submission to t!e jurisdiction o t!e said trial court. ?e !ence disa"ree wit! t!e contention o t!e petitioner and rule t!at t!ere was no voluntar# appearance beore t!e trial court t!at could constitute estoppel or a waiver o respondent3s objection to jurisdiction over its person. ?9ERE2ORE, t!e petition is DENIED. -!e October $5, &(() Order o t!e Re"ional -rial Court o 0a1ati Cit#, ,ranc! $<&, dismissin" t!e complaint or lac1 o jurisdiction, is %22IR0ED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 1&95&7 '!"( &, 200) *HILI**INE AIRLINES, IN., petitioner, vs. HON. ADRIANO SA+ILLO, *r,-#.#$% '!.%, o/ RT Bra$ch 00 , I"o#"o #1(, a$. SIM*LIIO GRI2O,respondents. D E C I S I O N HIO3NA4ARIO, J.5 -!is is a Petition or Review on Certiorari under Rule 5) o t!e Rules o Court, assailin" t!e Decision $ dated $G %u"ust &(($, rendered b# t!e Court o %ppeals in C%:C.R. SP No. 5'AA5, aOrmin" in toto t!e Order & dated J June $JJ', o ,ranc! <( o t!e Re"ional -rial Court .R-C/ o Iloilo Cit#, dismissin" t!e 0otion to Dismiss +led b# petitioner P!ilippine %irlines Inc. .P%*/ in t!e case entitled, Simplicio Grio v. hilippine Airlines! Inc. and Sin"apore Airlines, doc1eted as Civil Case No. &<GG<. P%* is a corporation dul# or"aniHed under P!ilippine law, en"a"ed in t!e business o providin" air carria"e or passen"ers, ba""a"e and car"o. < Public respondent 9on. %driano Savillo is t!e presidin" jud"e o ,ranc! <( o t!e Iloilo R-C, w!ere Civil Case No. &<GG< was +ledE w!ile private respondent Simplicio CriSo is t!e plainti> in t!e aorementioned case. -!e acts are undisputed. Private respondent was invited to participate in t!e $JJ< %SE%N Seniors %nnual Col -ournament !eld in Ja1arta, Indonesia. 9e and several companions decided to purc!ase t!eir respective passen"er tic1ets rom P%* wit! t!e ollowin" points o passa"eD 0%NI*%:SINC%PORE:J%7%R-%: SINC%PORE:0%NI*%. Private respondent and !is companions were made to understand b# P%* t!at its plane would ta1e t!em rom 0anila to Sin"apore, w!ile Sin"apore %irlines would ta1e t!em rom Sin"apore to Ja1arta. 5 On < October $JJ<, private respondent and !is companions too1 t!e P%* 4i"!t to Sin"apore and arrived at about AD(( o3cloc1 in t!e evenin". 6pon t!eir arrival, t!e# proceeded to t!e Sin"apore %irlines oOce to c!ec1:in or t!eir 4i"!t to Ja1arta sc!eduled at 'D(( o3cloc1 in t!e same evenin". Sin"apore %irlines rejected t!e tic1ets o private respondent and !is "roup because t!e# were not endorsed b# P%*. It was e@plained to private respondent and !is "roup t!at i Sin"apore %irlines !onored t!e tic1ets wit!out P%*3s endorsement, P%* would not pa# Sin"apore %irlines or t!eir passa"e. Private respondent tried to contact P%*3s oOce at t!e airport, onl# to +nd out t!at it was closed. ) Stranded at t!e airport in Sin"apore and let wit! no recourse, private respondent was in panic and at a loss w!ere to "oE and was subjected to !umiliation, embarrassment, mental an"uis!, serious an@iet#, ear and distress. Eventuall#, private respondent and !is companions were orced to purc!ase tic1ets rom Caruda %irlines and board its last 4i"!t bound or Ja1arta. ?!en t!e# arrived in Ja1arta at about $&D(( o3cloc1 midni"!t, t!e part# w!o was supposed to etc! t!em rom t!e airport !ad alread# let and t!e# !ad to arran"e or t!eir transportation to t!e !otel at a ver# late !our. %ter t!e series o nerve: wrac1in" e@periences, private respondent became ill and was unable to participate in t!e tournament. A 6pon !is return to t!e P!ilippines, private respondent brou"!t t!e matter to t!e attention o P%*. 9e sent a demand letter to P%* on &( December $JJ< and anot!er to Sin"apore %irlines on &$ 0arc! $JJ5. 9owever, bot! airlines disowned liabilit# and blamed eac! ot!er or t!e +asco. On $) %u"ust $JJG, private respondent +led a Complaint or Dama"es beore t!e R-C doc1eted as Civil Case No. &<GG<, see1in" compensation or moral dama"es in t!e amount o P$,(((,(((.(( and attorne#3s ees. G Instead o +lin" an answer to private respondent3s Complaint, P%* +led a 0otion to Dismiss ' dated $' September $JJ' on t!e "round t!at t!e said complaint was barred on t!e "round o prescription under Section $./ o Rule $A o t!e Rules o Court. J P%* ar"ued t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention, $( particularl# %rticle &J t!ereo, $$ "overned t!is case, as it provides t!at an# claim or dama"es in connection wit! t!e international transportation o persons is subject to t!e prescription period o two #ears. Since t!e Complaint was +led on $) %u"ust $JJG, more t!an t!ree #ears ater P%* received t!e demand letter on &) Januar# $JJ5, it was alread# barred b# prescription. On J June $JJ', t!e R-C issued an Order $& den#in" t!e 0otion to Dismiss. It maintained t!at t!e provisions o t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent laws o t!e P!ilippines, not t!e ?arsaw Convention, were applicable to t!e present case. -!e Court o %ppeals, in its assailed Decision dated $G %u"ust &(($, li1ewise dismissed t!e Petition or Certiorari +led b# P%* and aOrmed t!e J June $JJ' Order o t!e R-C. It pronounced t!at t!e application o t!e ?arsaw Convention must not be construed to preclude t!e application o t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent laws. ,# appl#in" %rticle $$55 o t!e Civil Code, $< w!ic! allowed or a ten:#ear prescription period, t!e appellate court declared t!at t!e Complaint +led b# private respondent s!ould not be dismissed. $5 9ence, t!e present Petition, in w!ic! petitioner raises t!e ollowin" issuesD I -9E CO6R- O2 %PPE%*S ERRED IN NO- CIBINC D6E CO6RSE -O -9E PE-I-ION %S RESPONDEN- J6DCE CO00I-ED CR%BE %,6SE O2 DISCRE-ION %0O6N-INC -O *%C7 O2 J6RSIDIC-ION IN DENMINC P%*3S 0O-ION -O DIS0ISS. II -9E CO6R- O2 %PPE%*S ERRED IN NO- %PP*MINC -9E PROBISIONS O2 -9E ?%RS%? CONBEN-ION DESPI-E -9E 2%C- -9%- CRITO3S C%6SE O2 %C-ION %ROSE 2RO0 % ,RE%C9 O2 CON-R%C- 2OR IN-ERN%-ION%* %IR -R%NSPOR-. III -9E CO6R- O2 %PPE%*S ERRED IN NO- 9O*DINC -9%- -9E CO0P*%IN- 2I*ED ,M CRITO ,EMOND -9E -?O .&/:ME%R PERIOD PROBIDED 6NDER -9E ?%RS%? CONBEN-ION IS %*RE%DM ,%RRED ,M PRESCRIP-ION. $) -!e petition is wit!out merit. In determinin" w!et!er P%*3s 0otion to Dismiss s!ould !ave been "ranted b# t!e trial court, it must be ascertained i all t!e claims made b# t!e private respondent in !is Complaint are covered b# t!e ?arsaw Convention, w!ic! e>ectivel# bars all claims made outside t!e two:#ear prescription period provided under %rticle &J t!ereo. I t!e ?arsaw Convention covers all o private respondent3s claims, t!en Civil Case No. &<GG< !as alread# prescribed and s!ould t!ereore be dismissed. On t!e ot!er !and, i some, i not all, o respondent3s claims are outside t!e covera"e o t!e ?arsaw Convention, t!e R-C ma# still proceed to !ear t!e case. -!e ?arsaw Convention applies to ;all international transportation o persons, ba""a"e or "oods perormed b# an# aircrat or !ire.; It see1s to accommodate or balance t!e interests o passen"ers see1in" recover# or personal injuries and t!e interests o air carriers see1in" to limit potential liabilit#. It emplo#s a sc!eme o strict liabilit# avorin" passen"ers and imposin" dama"e caps to bene+t air carriers. $A -!e cardinal purpose o t!e ?arsaw Convention is to provide uniormit# o rules "overnin" claims arisin" rom international air travelE t!us, it precludes a passen"er rom maintainin" an action or personal injur# dama"es under local law w!en !is or !er claim does not satis# t!e conditions o liabilit# under t!e Convention. $G %rticle $J o t!e ?arsaw Convention provides or liabilit# on t!e part o a carrier or ;dama"es occasioned b# dela# in t!e transportation b# air o passen"ers, ba""a"e or "oods.; %rticle &5 e@cludes ot!er remedies b# urt!er providin" t!at ;.$/ in t!e cases covered b# articles $' and $J, an# action or dama"es, !owever ounded, can onl# be brou"!t subject to t!e conditions and limits set out in t!is convention.; -!ereore, a claim covered b# t!e ?arsaw Convention can no lon"er be recovered under local law, i t!e statute o limitations o two #ears !as alread# lapsed. Nevert!eless, t!is Court notes t!at jurisprudence in t!e P!ilippines and t!e 6nited States also reco"niHes t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention does not ;e@clusivel# re"ulate; t!e relations!ip between passen"er and carrier on an international 4i"!t. -!is Court +nds t!at t!e present case is substantiall# similar to cases in w!ic! t!e dama"es sou"!t were considered to be outside t!e covera"e o t!e ?arsaw Convention. In #nited Airlines v. #$, $' t!is Court distin"uis!ed between t!e .$/ dama"e to t!e passen"er3s ba""a"e and .&/ !umiliation !e su>ered at t!e !ands o t!e airline3s emplo#ees. -!e +rst cause o action was covered b# t!e ?arsaw Convention w!ic! prescribes in two #ears, w!ile t!e second was covered b# t!e provisions o t!e Civil Code on torts, w!ic! prescribes in our #ears. Similar distinctions were made in %merican jurisprudence. In %ahane$ v. Air &rance, $J a passen"er was denied access to an airline 4i"!t between New Mor1 and 0e@ico, despite t!e act t!at s!e !eld a con+rmed reservation. -!e court t!erein ruled t!at i t!e plainti> were to claim dama"es based solel# on t!e dela# s!e e@perienced N or instance, t!e costs o rentin" a van, w!ic! s!e !ad to arran"e on !er own as a conse8uence o t!e dela# N t!e complaint would be barred b# t!e two:#ear statute o limitations. 9owever, w!ere t!e plainti> alle"ed t!at t!e airlines subjected !er to unjust discrimination or undue or unreasonable preerence or disadvanta"e, an act punis!able under t!e 6nited States laws, t!en t!e plainti> ma# claim purel# nominal compensator# dama"es or !umiliation and !urt eelin"s, w!ic! are not provided or b# t!e ?arsaw Convention. In anot!er case, 'ol"el v. %e(icana Airlines, &( t!e court pronounced t!at actions or dama"es or t!e ;bumpin" o>; itsel, rat!er t!an t!e incidental dama"es due to t!e dela#, all outside t!e ?arsaw Convention and do not prescribe in two #ears. In t!e Petition at bar, private respondent3s Complaint alle"ed t!at bot! P%* and Sin"apore %irlines were "uilt# o "ross ne"li"ence, w!ic! resulted in !is bein" subjected to ;!umiliation, embarrassment, mental an"uis!, serious an@iet#, ear and distress.; &$ -!e emotional !arm su>ered b# t!e private respondent as a result o !avin" been unreasonabl# and unjustl# prevented rom boardin" t!e plane s!ould be distin"uis!ed rom t!e actual dama"es w!ic! resulted rom t!e same incident. 6nder t!e Civil Code provisions on tort, && suc! emotional !arm "ives rise to compensation w!ere "ross ne"li"ence or malice is proven. -!e instant case is comparable to t!e case o )athi"ra v. *ritish Airwa$s. &< In )athi"ra, it was !eld t!at t!e airlines3 ne"li"ent act o recon+rmin" t!e passen"er3s reservation da#s beore departure and ailin" to inorm t!e latter t!at t!e 4i"!t !ad alread# been discontinued is not amon" t!e acts covered b# t!e ?arsaw Convention, since t!e alle"ed ne"li"ence did not occur durin" t!e perormance o t!e contract o carria"e but, rat!er, da#s beore t!e sc!eduled 4i"!t. In t!e case at !and, Sin"apore %irlines barred private respondent rom boardin" t!e Sin"apore %irlines 4i"!t because P%* alle"edl# ailed to endorse t!e tic1ets o private respondent and !is companions, despite P%*3s assurances to respondent t!at Sin"apore %irlines !ad alread# con+rmed t!eir passa"e. ?!ile t!is act still needs to be !eard and establis!ed b# ade8uate proo beore t!e R-C, an action based on t!ese alle"ations will not all under t!e ?arsaw Convention, since t!e purported ne"li"ence on t!e part o P%* did not occur durin" t!e perormance o t!e contract o carria"e but da#s beore t!e sc!eduled 4i"!t. -!us, t!e present action cannot be dismissed based on t!e statute o limitations provided under %rticle &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention. 9ad t!e present case merel# consisted o claims incidental to t!e airlines3 dela# in transportin" t!eir passen"ers, t!e private respondent3s Complaint would !ave been time:barred under %rticle &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention. 9owever, t!e present case involves a special species o injur# resultin" rom t!e ailure o P%* andFor Sin"apore %irlines to transport private respondent rom Sin"apore to Ja1arta N t!e proound distress, ear, an@iet# and !umiliation t!at private respondent e@perienced w!en, despite P%*3s earlier assurance t!at Sin"apore %irlines con+rmed !is passa"e, !e was prevented rom boardin" t!e plane and !e aced t!e dauntin" possibilit# t!at !e would be stranded in Sin"apore %irport because t!e P%* oOce was alread# closed. -!ese claims are covered b# t!e Civil Code provisions on tort, and not wit!in t!e purview o t!e ?arsaw Convention. 9ence, t!e applicable prescription period is t!at provided under %rticle $$5A o t!e Civil CodeD %rt. $$5A. -!e ollowin" actions must be instituted wit!in our #earsD .$/ 6pon an injur# to t!e ri"!ts o t!e plainti>E .&/ 6pon a 8uasi:delict. Private respondent3s Complaint was +led wit! t!e R-C on $) %u"ust $JJG, w!ic! was less t!an our #ears since P%* received !is e@trajudicial demand on &) Januar# $JJ5. -!us, private respondent3s claims !ave not #et prescribed and P%*3s 0otion to Dismiss must be denied. 0oreover, s!ould t!ere be an# doubt as to t!e prescription o private respondent3s Complaint, t!e more prudent action is or t!e R-C to continue !earin" t!e same and den# t!e 0otion to Dismiss. ?!ere it cannot be determined wit! certaint# w!et!er t!e action !as alread# prescribed or not, t!e deense o prescription cannot be sustained on a mere motion to dismiss based on w!at appears to be on t!e ace o t!e complaint. &5 %nd w!ere t!e "round on w!ic! prescription is based does not appear to be indubitable, t!e court ma# do well to deer action on t!e motion to dismiss until ater trial on t!e merits. &) IN +IEW O6 THE 6OREGOING, t!e instant Petition is DENIED. -!e assailed Decision o t!e Court o %ppeals in C%:C.R. SP No. 5'AA5, promul"ated on $G %u"ust &(($ is A66IRMED. Costs a"ainst t!e petitioner. SO ORDERED. 7G.R. No. 15009&. A!%!-1 1), 200&8 6EDERAL E9*RESS OR*ORATION, petitioner, vs. AMERIAN HOME ASSURANE OM*ANY a$. *HILAM INSURANE OM*ANY, IN.,respondents. D E I S I O N *ANGANIBAN, J.: ,asic is t!e re8uirement t!at beore suin" to recover loss o or dama"e to transported "oods, t!e plainti> must "ive t!e carrier notice o t!e loss or dama"e, wit!in t!e period prescribed b# t!e ?arsaw Convention andFor t!e airwa# bill. Th, a-, ,eore us is a Petition or Review Q$R under Rule 5) o t!e Rules o Court, c!allen"in" t!e June 5, &(($ Decision Q&R and t!e September &$, &(($ Resolution Q<R o t!e Court o %ppeals .C%/ in C%:CR CB No. )'&('. -!e assailed Decision disposed as ollowsD U?9ERE2ORE, premises considered, t!e present appeal is !ereb# DIS0ISSED or lac1 o merit. -!e appealed Decision o ,ranc! $5J o t!e Re"ional -rial Court o 0a1ati Cit# in Civil Case No. +,- 1-1+!entitled .American /ome Assurance Co. and /I)A% Insurance Co.! Inc. v. &0102A) 0320SS CO2O2A4ION and5or CA2GO/A#S! INC. 67ormerl$ #-'A20/O#S0! INC.8!9 is !ereb# A66IRMEDand REITERATED. UCosts a"ainst t!e Qpetitioner and Car"o!aus, Inc.R.V Q5R -!e assailed Resolution denied petitioner3s 0otion or Reconsideration. Th, 6ac1- -!e antecedent acts are summariHed b# t!e appellate court as ollowsD UOn Januar# &A, $JJ5, S0I-97*INE ,eec!am .S0I-97*INE or brevit#/ o Nebras1a, 6S% delivered to ,urlin"ton %ir E@press .,6R*INC-ON/, an a"ent o QPetitionerR 2ederal E@press Corporation, a s!ipment o $(J cartons o veterinar# biolo"icals or deliver# to consi"nee S0I-97*INE and 2renc! Overseas Compan# in 0a1ati Cit#, 0etro 0anila. -!e s!ipment was covered b# ,urlin"ton %irwa# ,ill No. $$&A<'&) wit! t!e words, WRE2RICER%-E ?9EN NO- IN -R%NSI-3 and WPERIS9%,*E3 stamp mar1ed on its ace. -!at same da#, ,urlin"ton insured t!e car"oes in t!e amount o X<J,<<J.(( wit! %merican 9ome %ssurance Compan# .%9%C/. -!e ollowin" da#, ,urlin"ton turned over t!e custod# o said car"oes to 2ederal E@press w!ic! transported t!e same to 0anila. -!e +rst s!ipment, consistin" o J& cartons arrived in 0anila on Januar# &J, $JJ5 in 2li"!t No. ((G$: &'NR- and was immediatel# stored at QCar"o!aus Inc.3sR ware!ouse. ?!ile t!e second, consistin" o $G cartons, came in two .&/ da#s later, or on Januar# <$, $JJ5, in 2li"!t No. ((G$:<(NR- w!ic! was li1ewise immediatel# stored at Car"o!aus3 ware!ouse. Prior to t!e arrival o t!e car"oes, 2ederal E@press inormed CE-C Car"o International Corporation, t!e customs bro1er !ired b# t!e consi"nee to acilitate t!e release o its car"oes rom t!e ,ureau o Customs, o t!e impendin" arrival o its client3s car"oes. UOn 2ebruar# $(, $JJ5, D%RIO C. DIONED% .WDIONED%3/, twelve .$&/ da#s ater t!e car"oes arrived in 0anila, a non:licensed custom3s bro1er w!o was assi"ned b# CE-C to acilitate t!e release o t!e subject car"oes, ound out, w!ile !e was about to cause t!e release o t!e said car"oes, t!at t!e same QwereR stored onl# in a room wit! two .&/ air conditioners runnin", to cool t!e place instead o a reri"erator. ?!en !e as1ed an emplo#ee o Car"o!aus w!# t!e car"oes were stored in t!e Wcool room3 onl#, t!e latter told !im t!at t!e cartons w!ere t!e vaccines were contained speci+call# indicated t!erein t!at it s!ould not be subjected to !ot or cold temperature. -!ereater, DIONED%, upon instructions rom CE-C, did not proceed wit! t!e wit!drawal o t!e vaccines and instead, samples o t!e same were ta1en and brou"!t to t!e ,ureau o %nimal Industr# o t!e Department o %"riculture in t!e P!ilippines b# S0I-97*INE or e@amination w!erein it was discovered t!at t!e WE*IS% readin" o vaccinates sera are below t!e positive reerence serum.3 U%s a conse8uence o t!e ore"oin" result o t!e veterinar# biolo"ics test, S0I-97*INE abandoned t!e s!ipment and, declarin" Wtotal loss3 or t!e unusable s!ipment, +led a claim wit! %9%C t!rou"! its representative in t!e P!ilippines, t!e P!ilam Insurance Co., Inc. .WP9I*%03/ w!ic! recompensed S0I-97*INE or t!e w!ole insured amount o -9IR-M NINE -9O6S%ND -9REE 96NDRED -9IR-M NINE DO**%RS .X<J,<<J.((/. -!ereater, QrespondentsR +led an action or dama"es a"ainst t!e QpetitionerR imputin" ne"li"ence on eit!er or bot! o t!em in t!e !andlin" o t!e car"o. U-rial ensued and ultimatel# concluded on 0arc! $', $JJG wit! t!e QpetitionerR bein" !eld solidaril# liable or t!e loss as ollowsD W?9ERE2ORE, jud"ment is !ereb# rendered in avor o QrespondentsR and Qpetitioner and its Co: Deendant Car"o!ausR are directed to pa# QrespondentsR, jointl# and severall#, t!e ollowin"D $. %ctual dama"es in t!e amount o t!e peso e8uivalent o 6SX<J,<<J.(( wit! interest rom t!e time o t!e +lin" o t!e complaint to t!e time t!e same is ull# paid. &. %ttorne#3s ees in t!e amount o P)(,(((.(( and <. Costs o suit. WSO ORDERED.3 U%""rieved, QpetitionerR appealed to Qt!e C%R.V Q)R R!"#$% o/ 1h, o!r1 o/ A::,a"- -!e -est Report issued b# t!e 6nited States Department o %"riculture .%nimal and Plant 9ealt! Inspection Service/ was ound b# t!e C% to be inadmissible in evidence. Despite t!is rulin", t!e appellate court !eld t!at t!e s!ippin" Receipts were a prima acie proo t!at t!e "oods !ad indeed been delivered to t!e carrier in "ood condition. ?e 8uote rom t!e rulin" as ollowsD U?!ere t!e plainti> introduces evidence w!ic! s!ows prima 7acie t!at t!e "oods were delivered to t!e carrier in "ood condition Qi.e., t!e s!ippin" receiptsR, and t!at t!e carrier delivered t!e "oods in a dama"ed condition, a presumption is raised t!at t!e dama"e occurred t!rou"! t!e ault or ne"li"ence o t!e carrier! and t!is casts upon t!e carrier t!e burden o s!owin" t!at t!e "oods were not in "ood condition w!en delivered to t!e carrier, or t!at t!e dama"e was occasioned b# some cause e@ceptin" t!e carrier rom absolute liabilit#. -!is t!e QpetitionerR ailed to disc!ar"e. @ @ @.V QAR 2ound devoid o merit was petitioner3s claim t!at respondents !ad no personalit# to sue. -!is ar"ument was supposedl# not raised in t!e %nswer or durin" trial. 9ence, t!is Petition. QGR Th, I--!,- In its 0emorandum, petitioner raises t!e ollowin" issues or our considerationD UI. %re t!e decision and resolution o t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals proper subject or review b# t!e 9onorable Court under Rule 5) o t!e $JJG Rules o Civil ProcedureY UII. Is t!e conclusion o t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals N petitioner3s claim t!at respondents !ave no personalit# to sue because t!e pa#ment was made b# t!e respondents to Smit!1line w!en t!e insured under t!e polic# is ,urlin"ton %ir E@press is devoid o merit N correct or notY UIII. Is t!e conclusion o t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals t!at t!e "oods were received in "ood condition, correct or notY UIB. %re E@!ibits W23 and WC3 !earsa# evidence, and t!ereore, not admissibleY UB. Is t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals correct in i"norin" and disre"ardin" respondents3 own admission t!at petitioner is not liableY and UBI. Is t!e 9onorable Court o %ppeals correct in i"norin" t!e ?arsaw ConventionYV Q'R Simpl# stated, t!e issues are as ollowsD .$/ Is t!e Petition proper or review b# t!e Supreme CourtY .&/ Is 2ederal E@press liable or dama"e to or loss o t!e insured "oodsY Th#- o!r1;- R!"#$% -!e Petition !as merit. *r,"#<#$ar( I--!,5 Propriety of Review -!e correctness o le"al conclusions drawn b# t!e Court o %ppeals rom undisputed acts is a 8uestion o law co"niHable b# t!e Supreme Court. QJR In t!e present case, t!e acts are undisputed. %s will be s!own s!ortl#, petitioner is 8uestionin" t!e conclusions drawn rom suc! acts. 9ence, t!is case is a proper subject or review b# t!is Court. Ma#$ I--!,5 Liability for Damages Petitioner contends t!at respondents !ave no personalit# to sue :: t!us, no cause o action a"ainst it :: because t!e pa#ment made to Smit!1line was erroneous. Pertinent to t!is issue is t!e Certi+cate o Insurance Q$(R .UCerti+cateV/ t!at bot! opposin" parties cite in support o t!eir respective positions. -!e# di>er onl# in t!eir interpretation o w!at t!eir ri"!ts are under its terms. -!e determination o t!ose ri"!ts involves a 8uestion o law, not a 8uestion o act. U%s distin"uis!ed rom a 8uestion o law w!ic! e@ists Ww!en t!e doubt or di>erence arises as to w!at t!e law is on a certain state o acts3 :: Wt!ere is a 8uestion o act w!en t!e doubt or di>erence arises as to t!e trut! or t!e alse!ood o alle"ed acts3E or w!en t!e W8uer# necessaril# invites calibration o t!e w!ole evidence considerin" mainl# t!e credibilit# o witnesses, e@istence and relevanc# o speci+c surroundin" circumstance, t!eir relation to eac! ot!er and to t!e w!ole and t!e probabilities o t!e situation.3V Q$$R Proper Payee -!e Certi+cate speci+es t!at loss o or dama"e to t!e insured car"o is Upa#able to order @ @ @ upon surrender o t!is Certi+cate.V Suc! wordin" conve#s t!e ri"!t o collectin" on an# suc! dama"e or loss, as ull# as i t!e propert# were covered b# a special polic# in t!e name o t!e !older itsel. %t t!e bac1 o t!e Certi+cate appears t!e si"nature o t!e representative o ,urlin"ton. -!is document !as t!us been dul# indorsed in blan1 and is deemed a bearer instrument. Since t!e Certi+cate was in t!e possession o Smit!1line, t!e latter !ad t!e ri"!t o collectin" or o bein" indemni+ed or loss o or dama"e to t!e insured s!ipment, as ull# as i t!e propert# were covered b# a special polic# in t!e name o t!e !older. 9ence, bein" t!e !older o t!e Certi+cate and !avin" an insurable interest in t!e "oods, Smit!1line was t!e proper pa#ee o t!e insurance proceeds. ubrogation 6pon receipt o t!e insurance proceeds, t!e consi"nee .Smit!1line/ e@ecuted a subro"ation Receipt Q$&R in avor o respondents. -!e latter were t!us aut!oriHed Uto +le claims and be"in suit a"ainst an# suc! carrier, vessel, person, corporation or "overnment.V 6ndeniabl#, t!e consi"nee !ad a le"al ri"!t to receive t!e "oods in t!e same condition it was delivered or transport to petitioner. I t!at ri"!t was violated, t!e consi"nee would !ave a cause o action a"ainst t!e person responsible t!ereor. 6pon pa#ment to t!e consi"nee o an indemnit# or t!e loss o or dama"e to t!e insured "oods, t!e insurer3s entitlement to subro"ation pro tanto :: bein" o t!e !i"!est e8uit# :: e8uips it wit! a cause o action in case o a contractual breac! or ne"li"ence. Q$<R U2urt!er, t!e insurer3s subro"ator# ri"!t to sue or recover# under t!e bill o ladin" in case o loss o or dama"e to t!e car"o is jurisprudentiall# up!eld.V Q$5R In t!e e@ercise o its subro"ator# ri"!t, an insurer ma# proceed a"ainst an errin" carrier. -o all intents and purposes, it stands in t!e place and in substitution o t!e consi"nee. A 7ortiori! bot! t!e insurer and t!e consi"nee are bound b# t!e contractual stipulations under t!e bill o ladin". Q$)R Prescription of !laim 2rom t!e initial proceedin"s in t!e trial court up to t!e present, petitioner !as tirelessl# pointed out t!at respondents3 claim and ri"!t o action are alread# barred. -!e latter, and even t!e consi"nee, never +led wit! t!e carrier an# written notice or complaint re"ardin" its claim or dama"e o or loss to t!e subject car"o wit!in t!e period re8uired b# t!e ?arsaw Convention andFor in t!e airwa# bill. Indeed, t!is act !as never been denied b# respondents and is plainl# evident rom t!e records. %irwa# ,ill No. $$&A<'&), issued b# ,urlin"ton as a"ent o petitioner, statesD UA. No action s!all be maintained in t!e case o dama"e to or partial loss o t!e s!ipment unless a written notice, suOcientl# describin" t!e "oods concerned, t!e appro@imate date o t!e dama"e or loss, and t!e details o t!e claim, is presented b# s!ipper or consi"nee to an oOce o ,urlin"ton wit!in .$5/ da#s rom t!e date t!e "oods are placed at t!e disposal o t!e person entitled to deliver#, or in t!e case o total loss .includin" non:deliver#/ unless presented wit!in .$&(/ da#s rom t!e date o issue o t!e Q%irwa# ,illR.V Q$AR Relevantl#, petitioner3s airwa# bill statesD U$&.F$&.$ -!e person entitled to deliver# must ma1e a complaint to t!e carrier in writin" in t!e caseD $&.$.$ o visible dama"e to t!e "oods, immediatel# ater discover# o t!e dama"e and at t!e latest wit!in ourteen .$5/ da#s rom receipt o t!e "oodsE $&.$.& o ot!er dama"e to t!e "oods, wit!in ourteen .$5/ da#s rom t!e date o receipt o t!e "oodsE $&.$.< dela#, wit!in twent#:one .&$/ da#s o t!e date t!e "oods are placed at !is disposalE and $&.$.5 o non:deliver# o t!e "oods, wit!in one !undred and twent# .$&(/ da#s rom t!e date o t!e issue o t!e air wa#bill. $&.& 2or t!e purpose o $&.$ complaint in writin" ma# be made to t!e carrier w!ose air wa#bill was used, or to t!e +rst carrier or to t!e last carrier or to t!e carrier w!o perormed t!e transportation durin" w!ic! t!e loss, dama"e or dela# too1 place.V Q$GR %rticle &A o t!e ?arsaw Convention, on t!e ot!er !and, providesD U%R-. &A. .$/ Receipt b# t!e person entitled to t!e deliver# o ba""a"e or "oods wit!out complaint s!all be prima acie evidence t!at t!e same !ave been delivered in "ood condition and in accordance wit! t!e document o transportation. .&/ In case o dama"e, t!e person entitled to deliver# must complain to t!e carrier ort!wit! ater t!e discover# o t!e dama"e, and, at t!e latest, wit!in < da#s rom t!e date o receipt in t!e case o ba""a"e and G da#s rom t!e date o receipt in t!e case o "oods. In case o dela# t!e complaint must be made at t!e latest wit!in $5 da#s rom t!e date on w!ic! t!e ba""a"e or "oods !ave been placed at !is disposal. .</ Ever# complaint must be made in writin" upon t!e document o transportation or b# separate notice in writin" dispatc!ed wit!in t!e times aoresaid. .5/ 2ailin" complaint wit!in t!e times aoresaid, no action s!all lie a"ainst t!e carrier, save in t!e case o raud on !is part.V Q$'R !ondition Precedent In t!is jurisdiction, t!e +lin" o a claim wit! t!e carrier wit!in t!e time limitation t!ereor actuall# constitutes a condition precedent to t!e accrual o a ri"!t o action a"ainst a carrier or loss o or dama"e to t!e "oods. Q$JR -!e s!ipper or consi"nee must alle"e and prove t!e ul+llment o t!e condition. I it ails to do so, no ri"!t o action a"ainst t!e carrier can accrue in avor o t!e ormer. -!e aorementioned re8uirement is a reasonable condition precedentE it does not constitute a limitation o action. Q&(R -!e re8uirement o "ivin" notice o loss o or injur# to t!e "oods is not an empt# ormalism. -!e undamental reasons or suc! a stipulation are .$/ to inorm t!e carrier t!at t!e car"o !as been dama"ed, and t!at it is bein" c!ar"ed wit! liabilit# t!ereorE and .&/ to "ive it an opportunit# to e@amine t!e nature and e@tent o t!e injur#. U-!is protects t!e carrier b# a>ordin" it an opportunit# to ma1e an investi"ation o a claim w!ile t!e matter is res! and easil# investi"ated so as to sae"uard itsel rom alse and raudulent claims.V Q&$R ?!en an airwa# bill :: or an# contract o carria"e or t!at matter :: !as a stipulation t!at re8uires a notice o claim or loss o or dama"e to "oods s!ipped and t!e stipulation is not complied wit!, its enorcement can be prevented and t!e liabilit# cannot be imposed on t!e carrier. -o stress, notice is a condition precedent, and t!e carrier is not liable i notice is not "iven in accordance wit! t!e stipulation. Q&&R 2ailure to compl# wit! suc! a stipulation bars recover# or t!e loss or dama"e su>ered. Q&<R ,ein" a condition precedent, t!e notice must precede a suit or enorcement. Q&5R In t!e present case, t!ere is neit!er an alle"ation nor a s!owin" o respondents3 compliance wit! t!is re8uirement wit!in t!e prescribed period. ?!ile respondents ma# !ave !ad a cause o action t!en, t!e# cannot now enorce it or t!eir ailure to compl# wit! t!e aoresaid condition precedent. In view o t!e ore"oin", we +nd no more necessit# to pass upon t!e ot!er issues raised b# petitioner. ?e note t!at respondents are not wit!out recourse. Car"o!aus, Inc. :: petitioner3s co: deendant in respondents3 Complaint below :: !as been adjud"ed b# t!e trial court as liable or,inter alia, Uactual dama"es in t!e amount o t!e peso e8uivalent o 6S X<J,<<J.V Q&)R -!is jud"ment was aOrmed b# t!e Court o %ppeals and is alread# +nal and e@ecutor#. Q&AR WHERE6ORE, t!e Petition is G2AN401! and t!e assailed Decision 20:02S01 insoar as it pertains to Petitioner 2ederal E@press Corporation. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. 7G.R. No. 1277=). No>,<?,r 19, 19998 UNITED AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. WILLIE '. UY, respondent. D E I S I O N BELLOSILLO, J.5 6NI-ED %IR*INES assails in t!is petition or review on certiorari under Rule 5) t!e &J %u"ust $JJ) Decision o t!e Court o %ppeals in C%:C.R. CB No. <JGA$ w!ic! reversed t!e G %u"ust $JJ& order issued b# t!e trial court in Civil Case No. I: J&:$&5$( Q$R "rantin" petitionerPs motion to dismiss based on prescription o cause o action. -!e issues sou"!t to be resolved are w!et!er t!e notice o appeal to t!e appellate court was timel# +led, and w!et!er %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention Q&R s!ould appl# to t!e case at bar. On $< October $J'J respondent ?illie J. 6#, a revenue passen"er on 6nited %irlines 2li"!t No. '$J or t!e San 2rancisco : 0anila route, c!ec1ed in to"et!er wit! !is lu""a"e one piece o w!ic! was ound to be overwei"!t at t!e airline counter. -o !is utter !umiliation, an emplo#ee o petitioner rebu1ed !im sa#in" t!at !e s!ould !ave 1nown t!e ma@imum wei"!t allowance to be G( 1"s. per ba" and t!at !e s!ould !ave pac1ed !is t!in"s accordin"l#. -!en, in a loud voice in ront o t!e millin" crowd, s!e told respondent to repac1 !is t!in"s and transer some o t!em rom t!e overwei"!t lu""a"e to t!e li"!ter ones. Not wis!in" to create urt!er scene, respondent acceded onl# to +nd !is lu""a"e still overwei"!t. -!e airline t!en billed !im overwei"!t c!ar"es w!ic! !e o>ered to pa# wit! a miscellaneous c!ar"e order .0CO/ or an airline pre:paid credit. 9owever, t!e airline3s emplo#ee, and later its airport supervisor, adamantl# reused to !onor t!e 0CO pointin" out t!at t!ere were con4ictin" +"ures listed on it. Despite t!e e@planation rom respondent t!at t!e last +"ure written on t!e 0CO represented !is balance, petitioner3s emplo#ees did not accommodate !im. 2aced wit! t!e prospect o leavin" wit!out !is lu""a"e, respondent paid t!e overwei"!t c!ar"es wit! !is %merican E@press credit card. Respondent3s troubles did not end t!ere. 6pon arrival in 0anila, !e discovered t!at one o !is ba"s !ad been slas!ed and its contents stolen. 9e particulariHed !is losses to be around 6S X),<$(.((. In a letter dated $A October $J'J respondent bewailed t!e insult, embarrassment and !umiliatin" treatment !e su>ered in t!e !ands o 6nited %irlines emplo#ees, noti+ed petitioner o !is loss and re8uested reimbursement t!ereo. Petitioner 6nited %irlines, t!rou"! Central ,a""a"e Specialist Joan 7roll, did not reute an# o respondent3s alle"ations and mailed a c!ec1 representin" t!e pa#ment o !is loss based on t!e ma@imum liabilit# o 6S XJ.G( per pound. Respondent, t!in1in" t!e amount to be "rossl# inade8uate to compensate !im or !is losses, as well as or t!e indi"nities !e was subjected to, sent two .&/ more letters to petitioner airline, one dated 5 Januar# $JJ( t!rou"! a certain %tt#. Pesi"an, and anot!er dated &' October $JJ$ t!rou"! %tt#. Ramon 6. %mpil demandin" an out:o:court settlement oP$,(((,(((.((. Petitioner 6nited %irlines did not accede to !is demands. Conse8uentl#, on J June $JJ& respondent +led a complaint or dama"es a"ainst 6nited %irlines alle"in" t!at !e was a person o "ood station, sittin" in t!e board o directors o several top )(( corporations and !oldin" senior e@ecutive positions or suc! similar +rmsE Q<R t!at petitioner airline accorded !im ill and s!abb# treatment to !is e@treme embarrassment and !umiliationE and, as suc! !e s!ould be paid moral dama"es o at least P$,(((,(((.((, e@emplar# dama"es o at least P)((,(((.((, plus attorne#Ps ees o at least P)(,(((.((. Similarl#, !e alle"ed t!at t!e dama"e to !is lu""a"e and its stolen contents amounted to around X),<$(.((, and re8uested reimbursement t!ereor. 6nited %irlines moved to dismiss t!e complaint on t!e "round t!at respondent3s cause o action !ad prescribed, invo1in" %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention w!ic! provides : %rt. &J .$/ -!e ri"!t to dama"es s!all be e@tin"uis!ed i an action is not brou"!t wit!in two .&/ #ears, rec1oned rom t!e date o arrival at t!e destination, or rom t!e date on w!ic! t!e aircrat ou"!t to !ave arrived, or rom t!e date on w!ic! t!e transportation stopped. .&/ -!e met!od o calculatin" t!e period o limitation s!all be determined b# t!e law o t!e court to w!ic! t!e case is submitted. Respondent countered t!at par. .$/ o %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention must be reconciled wit! par. .&/ t!ereo w!ic! states t!at ;t!e met!od o calculatin" t!e period o limitation s!all be determined b# t!e law o t!e court to w!ic! t!e case is submitted.; Interpretin" t!us, respondent noted t!at accordin" to P!ilippine laws t!e prescription o actions is interrupted ;w!en t!e# are +led beore t!e court, w!en t!ere is a written e@trajudicial demand b# t!e creditors, and w!en t!ere is an# written ac1nowled"ment o t!e debt b# t!e debtor.; Q5R Since !e made several demands upon 6nited %irlinesD ;rst, t!rou"! !is personal letter dated $A October $J'JE second, t!rou"! a letter dated 5 Januar# $JJ( rom %tt#. Pesi"anE and, ;nall$, t!rou"! a letter dated &' October $JJ$ written or !im b# %tt#. %mpil, t!e two .&/: #ear period o limitation !ad not #et been e@!austed. On & %u"ust $JJ& t!e trial court ordered t!e dismissal o t!e action !oldin" t!at t!e lan"ua"e o %rt. &J is clear t!at t!e action must be brou"!t wit!in two .&/ #ears rom t!e date o arrival at t!e destination. It !eld t!at alt!ou"! t!e second para"rap! o %rt. &J spea1s o deerence to t!e law o t!e local court in ;calculatin" t!e period o limitation,; t!e same does not reer to t!e local orum3s rules in interruptin" t!e prescriptive period but onl# to t!e rules o determinin" t!e time in w!ic! t!e action ma# be deemed commenced, and wit!in our jurisdiction t!e action s!all be deemed ;brou"!t; or commenced b# t!e +lin" o a complaint. 9ence, t!e trial court concluded t!at %rt. &J e@cludes t!e application o our interruption rules. Respondent received a cop# o t!e dismissal order on $G %u"ust $JJ&. On <$ %u"ust $JJ&, or ourteen .$5/ da#s later, !e moved or t!e reconsideration o t!e trial court3s order. -!e trial court denied t!e motion and respondent received cop# o t!e denial order on &' September $JJ&. -wo .&/ da#s later, on $ October $JJ& respondent +led !is notice o appeal. 6nited %irlines once a"ain moved or t!e dismissal o t!e case t!is time pointin" out t!at respondent3s +teen .$)/:da# period to appeal !ad alread# elapsed. Petitioner ar"ued t!at !avin" used ourteen .$5/ da#s o t!e re"lementar# period or appeal, respondent 6# !ad onl# one .$/ da# remainin" to perect !is appeal, and since !e +led !is notice o appeal two .&/ da#s later, !e ailed to meet t!e deadline. In its 8uestioned Decision dated &J %u"ust $JJ) Q)R t!e appellate court "ave due course to t!e appeal !oldin" t!at respondent3s dela# o two .&/ da#s in +lin" !is notice o appeal did not !inder it rom reviewin" t!e appealed order o dismissal since jurisprudence dictates t!at an appeal ma# be entertained despite procedural lapses anc!ored on e8uit# and justice. On t!e applicabilit# o t!e ?arsaw Convention, t!e appellate court ruled t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention did not preclude t!e operation o t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent laws. Respondent3s ailure to +le !is complaint wit!in t!e two .&/:#ear limitation provided in t!e ?arsaw Convention did not bar !is action since !e could still !old petitioner liable or breac! o ot!er provisions o t!e Civil Code w!ic! prescribe a di>erent period or procedure or institutin" an action. 2urt!er, under P!ilippine laws, prescription o actions is interrupted w!ere, amon" ot!ers, t!ere is a written e@trajudicial demand b# t!e creditors, and since respondent 6# sent several demand letters to petitioner 6nited %irlines, t!e runnin" o t!e two .&/:#ear prescriptive period was in e>ect suspended. 9ence, t!e appellate court ruled t!at respondent3s cause o action !ad not #et prescribed and ordered t!e records remanded to t!e IueHon Cit# trial court or urt!er proceedin"s. Petitioner now contends t!at t!e appellate court erred in assumin" jurisdiction over respondentPs appeal since it is clear t!at t!e notice o appeal was +led out o time. It ar"ues t!at t!e courts rela@ t!e strin"ent rule on perection o appeals onl# w!en t!ere are e@traordinar# circumstances, e."., w!en t!e Republic stands to lose !undreds o !ectares o land alread# titled and used or educational purposesE w!en t!e counsel o record was alread# deadE and w!erein appellant was t!e owner o t!e trademar1 or more t!an t!irt# .<(/ #ears, and t!e circumstances o t!e present case do not compare to t!e above e@ceptional cases. QAR Section $ o Rule 5) o t!e 1++< 2ules o7 Civil rocedure provides t!at ;a part# ma# appeal b# certiorari, rom a jud"ment o t!e Court o %ppeals, b# +lin" wit! t!e Supreme Court a petition or certiorari, wit!in +teen .$)/ da#s rom notice o jud"ment or o t!e denial o !is motion or reconsideration +led in due time @ @ @ @; -!is Rule !owever s!ould not be interpreted as ;to sacri+ce t!e substantial ri"!t o t!e appellant in t!e sop!isticated altar o tec!nicalities wit! impairment o t!e sacred principles o justice.; QGR It s!ould be borne in mind t!at t!e real purpose be!ind t!e limitation o t!e period o appeal is to orestall or avoid an unreasonable dela# in t!e administration o justice. -!us, we !ave ruled t!at dela# in t!e +lin" o a notice o appeal does not justi# t!e dismissal o t!e appeal w!ere t!e circumstances o t!e case s!ow t!at t!ere is no intent to dela# t!e administration o justice on t!e part o appellantPs counsel, Q'R or w!en t!ere are no substantial ri"!ts a>ected, QJR or w!en appellantPs counsel committed a mista1e in t!e computation o t!e period o appeal, an error not attributable to ne"li"ence or bad ait!. Q$(R In t!e instant case, respondent +led !is notice o appeal two .&/ da#s later t!an t!e prescribed period. %lt!ou"! !is counsel ailed to "ive t!e reason or t!e dela#, we are inclined to "ive due course to !is appeal due to t!e uni8ue and peculiar acts o t!e case and t!e serious 8uestion o law it poses. In t!e now almost trite but still "ood principle, tec!nicalit#, w!en it deserts its proper oOce as an aid to justice and becomes its "reat !indrance and c!ie enem#, deserves scant consideration. Q$$R Petitioner li1ewise contends t!at t!e appellate court erred in rulin" t!at respondentPs cause o action !as not prescribed since dele"ates to t!e ?arsaw Convention clearl# intended t!e two .&/: #ear limitation incorporated in %rt. &J as an absolute bar to suit and not to be made subject to t!e various tollin" provisions o t!e laws o t!e orum. Petitioner ar"ues t!at in construin" t!e second para"rap! o %rt. &J private respondent cannot read into it P!ilippine rules on interruption o prescriptive periods and state t!at !is e@trajudicial demand !as interrupted t!e period o prescription. Q$&R %merican jurisprudence !as declared t!at ;%rt. &J .&/ was not intended to permit orums to consider local limitation tollin" provisions but onl# to let local law determine w!et!er an action !ad been commenced wit!in t!e two:#ear period, since t!e met!od o commencin" a suit varies rom countr# to countr#.; Q$<R ?it!in our jurisdiction we !ave !eld t!at t!e ?arsaw Convention can be applied, or i"nored, dependin" on t!e peculiar acts presented b# eac! case. Q$5R -!us, we !ave ruled t!at t!e ConventionPs provisions do not re"ulate or e@clude liabilit# or ot!er breac!es o contract b# t!e carrier or misconduct o its oOcers and emplo#ees, or or some particular or e@ceptional t#pe o dama"e. Q$)R Neit!er ma# t!e Convention be invo1ed to justi# t!e disre"ard o some e@traordinar# sort o dama"e resultin" to a passen"er and preclude recover# t!ereor be#ond t!e limits set b# said Convention. Q$AR *i1ewise, we !ave !eld t!at t!e Convention does not preclude t!e operation o t!e Civil Code and ot!er pertinent laws. Q$GR It does not re"ulate, muc! less e@empt, t!e carrier rom liabilit# or dama"es or violatin" t!e ri"!ts o its passen"ers under t!e contract o carria"e, especiall# i willul misconduct on t!e part o t!e carrierPs emplo#ees is ound or establis!ed. Q$'R RespondentPs complaint reveals t!at !e is suin" on two .&/ causes o actionD .a/ t!e s!abb# and !umiliatin" treatment !e received rom petitionerPs emplo#ees at t!e San 2rancisco %irport w!ic! caused !im e@treme embarrassment and social !umiliationE and, .b/ t!e slas!in" o !is lu""a"e and t!e loss o !is personal e>ects amountin" to 6S X),<$(.((. ?!ile !is second cause o action : an action or dama"es arisin" rom t!et or dama"e to propert# or "oods : is well wit!in t!e bounds o t!e ?arsaw Convention, !is +rst cause o action :an action or dama"es arisin" rom t!e misconduct o t!e airline emplo#ees and t!e violation o respondentPs ri"!ts as passen"er : clearl# is not. Conse8uentl#, insoar as t!e +rst cause o action is concerned, respondentPs ailure to +le !is complaint wit!in t!e two .&/:#ear limitation o t!e ?arsaw Convention does not bar !is action since petitioner airline ma# still be !eld liable or breac! o ot!er provisions o t!e Civil Code w!ic! prescribe a di>erent period or procedure or institutin" t!e action, speci+call#, %rt. $$5A t!ereo w!ic! prescribes our .5/ #ears or +lin" an action based on torts. %s or respondentPs second cause o action, indeed t!e travau( preparatories o t!e ?arsaw Convention reveal t!at t!e dele"ates t!ereto intended t!e two .&/:#ear limitation incorporated in %rt. &J as an absolute bar to suit and not to be made subject to t!e various tollin" provisions o t!e laws o t!e orum. -!is t!ereore orecloses t!e application o our own rules on interruption o prescriptive periods. %rticle &J, par. .&/, was intended onl# to let local laws determine w!et!er an action !ad been commenced wit!in t!e two .&/:#ear period, and wit!in our jurisdiction an action s!all be deemed commenced upon t!e +lin" o a complaint. Since it is indisputable t!at respondent +led t!e present action be#ond t!e two .&/:#ear time rame !is second cause o action must be barred. Nonet!eless, it cannot be doubted t!at respondent e@erted e>orts to immediatel# conve# !is loss to petitioner, even emplo#ed t!e services o two .&/ law#ers to ollow up !is claims, and t!at t!e +lin" o t!e action itsel was dela#ed because o petitionerPs evasion. In t!is re"ard, hilippine Airlines! Inc. v. Court o7 Appeals Q$JR is instructive. In t!is case o A), private respondent +led an action or dama"es a"ainst petitioner airline or t!e brea1a"e o t!e ront "lass o t!e microwave oven w!ic! s!e s!ipped under P%* %ir ?a#bill No. (:GJ:$($<((': <. Petitioner averred t!at, t!e action !avin" been +led seven .G/ mont!s ater !er arrival at !er port o destination, s!e ailed to compl# wit! par. $&, subpar. .a/ .$/, o t!e %ir ?a#bill w!ic! e@pressl# provided t!at t!e person entitled to deliver# must ma1e a complaint to t!e carrier in writin" in case o visible dama"e to t!e "oods, immediatel# ater discover# o t!e dama"e and at t!e latest wit!in $5 da#s rom receipt o t!e "oods. Despite non: compliance t!erewit! t!e Court !eld t!at b# private respondentPs immediate submission o a ormal claim to petitioner, w!ic! !owever was not immediatel# entertained as it was reerred rom one emplo#ee to anot!er, s!e was deemed to !ave substantiall# complied wit! t!e re8uirement. -!e Court noted t!at wit! private respondentPs own Healous e>orts in pursuin" !er claim it was clearl# not !er ault t!at t!e letter o demand or dama"es could onl# be +led, ater mont!s o e@asperatin" ollow:up o t!e claim, on $< %u"ust $JJ(, and t!at i t!ere was an# ailure at all to +le t!e ormal claim wit!in t!e prescriptive period contemplated in t!e %ir ?a#bill, t!is was lar"el# because o t!e carrierPs own doin", t!e conse8uences o w!ic! could not in all airness be attributed to private respondent. In t!e same vein must we rule upon t!e circumstances brou"!t beore us. Beril#, respondent +led !is complaint more t!an two .&/ #ears later, be#ond t!e period o limitation prescribed b# t!e ?arsaw Convention or +lin" a claim or dama"es. 9owever, it is obvious t!at respondent was orestalled rom immediatel# +lin" an action because petitioner airline "ave !im t!e runaround, answerin" !is letters but not "ivin" in to !is demands. -rue, respondent s!ould !ave alread# +led an action at t!e +rst instance w!en !is claims were denied b# petitioner but t!e same could onl# be due to !is desire to ma1e an out:o:court settlement or w!ic! !e cannot be aulted. 9ence, despite t!e e@press mandate o %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention t!at an action or dama"es s!ould be +led wit!in two .&/ #ears rom t!e arrival at t!e place o destination, suc! rule s!all not be applied in t!e instant case because o t!e dela#in" tactics emplo#ed b# petitioner airline itsel. -!us, private respondentPs second cause o action cannot be considered as time:barred under %rt. &J o t!e ?arsaw Convention. WHERE6ORE, t!e assailed Decision o t!e Court o %ppeals reversin" and settin" aside t!e appealed order o t!e trial court "rantin" t!e motion to dismiss t!e complaint, as well as its Resolution den#in" reconsideration, is %22IR0ED. *et t!e records o t!e case be remanded to t!e court o ori"in or urt!er proceedin"s ta1in" its bearin"s rom t!is dis8uisition. SO ORDERED. 7G.R. No. L3&&90=. S,:1,<?,r 25, 1992.8 *HILI**INE AIRLINES, IN., Petitioner, >. THE OURT O6 A**EALS a$. HUA MIN,Respondents. S#%!#o$ R,($a, Mo$1,c#""o a$. O$%-#a@o /or Petitioner. *"ar#.," . 'o-, /or Private Respondent. D E I S I O N MELO, J.5 On December $(, $JG5, t!e 9onorable 2rancisco de la Rosa, at t!at time Presidin" Jud"e o ,ranc! G o t!e t!en Court o 2irst Instance o RiHal o t!e Sevent! Judicial District stationed in Pasa# Cit#, adjud"ed t!e accountabilit# o !erein petitioner as deendant in a suit or a sum o mone# in t!is mannerDj"cDc!anrobles.com.p! ;?9ERE2ORE, jud"ment is !ereb# rendered in avor o Plainti>Dc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# .a/ Orderin" Deendant to pa# Plainti> t!e amount in P!ilippine Pesos e8uivalent to 6.S.X5,(((.(( at t!e rate o e@c!an"e obtainin" in 0arc!, $JG&, wit! le"al interest rom t!e +lin" o t!is suit until ull# paidE .b/ Orderin" Deendant to pa# t!e costsE and .c/ Dismissin" Deendants3 Compulsor# Counterclaim.; .p. G(, Record on %ppeal/. -!e ore"oin" conclusion was ormulated b# t!e court o ori"in on t!e basis o t!e ollowin" actsDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# On %pril 5, $JG&, private respondent boarded !erein petitioner3s 2li"!t PR <($ rom 9on"1on" to 0anila and c!ec1ed in our .5/ pieces o ba""a"e. ?!en t!e plane landed in 0anila, private respondent was not able to locate t!e two pieces o ba""a"e containin" cinemato"rap!ic +lms despite dili"ent searc! t!ereor. Private respondent made t!e claim or suc! loss to petitioner w!ic! admitted t!e loss and o>ered to compensate private respondent .%nne@ ;<;, %nswerE pa"e $G, Record on %ppealE pa"e A5, Rollo/. Instead o acceptin" t!e o>er, private respondent opted to +le t!e case below to principall# recover t!e value o t!e lost items w!ic! !e estimated to be wort! P&(,(((.(( .para"rap! G, ComplaintE pa"e <, Record on %ppeal/. 9erein petitioner responded b# assertin" t!atDc!anrobles virtualawlibrar# c!anrobles.comDc!anrobles.com.p! ;.5/ Plainti> !as no cause o action a"ainst deendant. .)/ On 5 %pril $JG&, plainti> was a passen"er, econom# class on deendant3s 2li"!t No. PR <($F5 %pril $JG&, rom 9on"1on" to 0anila, under Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$5$'. %s suc! passen"er, plainti> c!ec1ed:in our .5/ pieces o ba""a"e, wit! a total wei"!t o onl# twent# .&(/ 1ilos, inclusive o t!eir contents suc! t!at it would be p!#sicall# impossible or t!e two alle"ed lost pieces, to !ave in t!emselves an a""re"ate wei"!t o twent#:+ve .&)/ 1ilos. .A/ %s suc! passen"er t!e contractual relations!ip between plainti> and deendant is w!oll# "overned b# t!e terms, conditions and stipulations w!ic! are clearl# printed on plainti>3s Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$5$'. %mon" t!e stipulations embodied in said tic1et is a provision "rantin" plainti> a ree ba""a"e allowance o twent# .&(/ 1ilos. % cop# o t!is provision, as embodied in plainti>3s tic1et is attac!ed !ereto as %nne@ ;$; and made part !ereo. .G/ In accordance wit! and in pursuant o t!is ree ba""a"e allowance %nne@ ;$;/ plainti> c!ec1ed:in !is our .5/ pieces o ba""a"e on 2li"!t No. PR<($F5 %pril $JG&, or w!ic! !e was issued correspondin" ba""a"e c!ec1s amon" t!em ba""a"e c!ec1s Nos. PR &5:'J:A$ and PR &5:'J: GA, coverin" plainti>3s two alle"ed lost pieces o ba""a"e. .'/ 6nder Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$:5$', w!ic! is t!e contract o carria"e between plainti> and deendant, it is an e@press condition o t!e contract t!at t!e same s!all be Wsubject to t!e rules and limitations relatin" to liabilit# establis!ed b# t!e ?arsaw Convention.3 % @ero@ cop# o pa"e & o plainti>3s Passen"er -ic1et No. &JG5:&<$5$' w!ic! contains t!e aoresaid condition is !ereto attac!ed as %nne@ ;&; and made part !ereo. .J/ 6nder applicable rules and re"ulations o t!e ?arsaw Convention on International Carria"e b# %ir .as amended b# t!e 9a"ue Protocol o $J))/, w!ic! is t!e convention reerred to in %nne@ ;&; !ereo, deendant3s liabilit# or plainti>3s two .&/ alle"ed lost pieces o ba""a"e is limited to a ma@imum o 6SXA.)( per 1ilo"ram. .$(/ -!e total wei"!t o plainti>3s our .5/ pieces o c!ec1ed:in ba""a"e, inclusive o t!eir contents, was onl# twent# .&(/ 1ilo"rams, suc! t!at eac! ba""a"e would !ave an avera"e wei"!t o +ve .)/ 1ilo"rams, and t!e two alle"ed lost pieces, an avera"e total wei"!t o onl# ten .$(/ 1ilo"rams. %ccordin"l#, deendant3s ma@imum liabilit# to plainti> is 6SX$A).((, or its e8uivalent in P!ilippine currenc#.; .pp. A:', Record on %ppeal/ %ter issues were joined, t!en plainti>, now private respondent C!ua 0in testi+ed and presented our documents .p. )G, Record on %ppeal/ w!ile petitioner did not call an# witness and merel# adopted t!ree e@!ibits o !erein private respondent .p. )', Record on %ppeal/.c!anrobles.com D virtual law librar# Petitioner attempted to c!allen"e private respondent3s personalit# to +le t!e suit on t!e "round t!at t!e +lm rolls belon"ed to t!e 9on"1on" +rm o ;*oon" 7ee Pen Co., 2ilm E@c!an"e Dept.;, apart rom t!e vacillatin" testimon# spewed b# C!ua 0in on t!e witness stand w!ic! supposedl# su""ests t!at !e !as no ri"!t to see1 restitution or t!e lost +lms, includin" t!e dama"es resultin" t!ererom. On t!e merits o private respondent3s plea or relie, petitioner tried to call t!e attention o t!e trial jud"e to t!e !erein below 8uoted provisions o t!e ?arsaw Convention w!ic! limit t!e liabilit# o petitioner as an air carrier to &)( rancs per 1ilo"ram, t!usDj"cDc!anrobles.com.p! ;%R-IC*E < .$/. 2or t!e transportation o passen"ers t!e carrier must deliver a passen"er tic1et w!ic! s!all contain t!e ollowin" particularsDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# .a/ . . . .b/ . . . .c/ . . . .d/ . . . .e/ % statement t!at t!e transportation is subject to t!e rules relatin" to liabilit# establis!ed b# t!is convention.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# ;%R-IC*E && .&/. In t!e transportation o c!ec1ed ba""a"e and o "oods, t!e liabilit# o t!e carrier s!all be limited to a sum o &)( rancs per 1ilo"ram, unless t!e consi"nor !as made, at t!e time w!en t!e pac1a"e was !anded over to t!e carrier, a special declaration o t!e value at deliver# and !as paid a supplementar# sum i t!e case so re8uires. In t!at case t!e carrier will be liable to pa# a sum not e@ceedin" t!e declared sum, unless !e proves t!at t!e sum is "reater t!an t!e actual value to t!e consi"nor at deliver#.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# In resolvin" t!e issue o private respondent3s le"al standin" to sue, t!e trial court e@pressed t!e view t!at !e can be considered as i !e were t!e owner on account o !is responsibilit# or an# eventualit# t!at ma# occur to t!e +lm rolls. Beril#, private respondent was considered to be a consi"nee o t!e lost "oods since !e accompanied t!e +lms aboard petitioner3s plane w!o is presumed to !ave accepted t!e contract o carria"e between t!e consi"nor and petitioner w!en !e later demanded t!e deliver# to !im o t!e movie +lms .p. A<, Record on %ppeal/. %nent t!e aspect o liabilit#, t!e trial court opined t!at since petitioner did not introduce a sin"le piece o document and merel# adopted private respondent3s e@!ibits, it ma# not invo1e t!e limitation o its liabilit# wit! respect to Wc!ec1ed ba""a"e3 under t!e provisions o t!e ?arsaw Convention. -!e apat!# o petitioner seems to !ave e@tended its impact on t!e outcome o t!e case w!en t!e trial court ruled t!at t!e +lms were wort! X5,(((.(( based on private respondent3s E@!ibit ;%; w!ic!, as aoresaid, was nonc!alantl# adopted b# petitioner as its E@!ibit ;$; .p. AJ, Record on %ppeal/.c!anroblesvirtualawlibrar# RealiHin" t!e vacuum insoar as t!e evidence is concerned, petitioner tried to +ll t!e !iatus b# startin" wit! t!e proposition in its motion or reconsideration t!at t!e tic1et under w!ic! private respondent was a passen"er on petitioner3s plane was a passen"er tic1et and ba""a"e c!ec1 at t!e same time. -!is tactic was resorted to in order to establis! t!e conclusion t!at petitioner could not !ave produced t!e same since t!e tic1et is usuall# retained b# t!e passen"er. Petitioner continued to asseverate t!at %rticle 5 para"rap! 5 o t!e ?arsaw Convention w!ic! readsDj"cDc!anrobles.com.p! ;.5/ -!e absence, irre"ularit#, or loss o t!e ba""a"e c!ec1s s!all not a>ect t!e e@istence or t!e validit# o t!e contract o transportation w!ic! s!all nonet!eless be subject to t!e rules o t!is convention. Nevert!eless, i t!e carrier accepts ba""a"e wit!out a ba""a"e c!ec1 !avin" been delivered, or i t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 does not contain t!e particulars set out at .d/, ./, and .!/ above, t!e carrier s!all not be entitled to avail !imsel o t!ose provisions o t!e convention w!ic! e@clude or limit !is liabilit#.; .p. AA, Record on %ppealE p. &<, 0otion or Reconsideration, p. A), Rollo/ upon w!ic! provision t!e trial court alle"edl# relied in rejectin" petitioner3s contention, is in act applicable jud"in" rom w!at is e@plicitl# stated under t!e +rst sentence o t!e proviso. -!ese ideas, !owever, did not persuade t!e trial jud"e to reconsider !is +ndin"s o accountabilit# on t!e part o petitioner .p. $$$, Record on %ppeal/. -!e appeal interposed t!ererom to t!e Court o %ppeals was li1ewise rebu>ed on September $G, $JGA b# t!e 2it! Division .2ernandeH .ponente/, Serrano, ,atacan, ==.,/ w!ic! sustained t!e observations and dispositions reac!ed b# t!e trial court on t!e same "rounds, e@cept t!at t!e sum o X5,(((.(( was directed to be paid b# petitioner in P!ilippine Currenc#, at t!e e@c!an"e rate obtainin" on t!e date t!e amount is actuall# paid to !erein private respondent .pp. 5<:55, Rollo/. Petitioner3s subse8uent recourse to secure re: evaluation o t!e jud"ment did not merit t!e nod o approval o t!e respondent Court o %ppeals .p. )A, Rollo/. -!ereupon, petitioner elevated to 6s t!e matter o its liabilit# under t!e contract o carria"e via t!e instant petition or review on certiorari, as1in" t!is CourtDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# ;I ?9E-9ER OR NO- PE-I-IONER C%N %B%I* O2 -9E *I0I-%-IONS ON *I%,I*I-M 6NDER -9E ?%RS%? CONBEN-ION. II ?9E-9ER OR NO- RESPONDEN- IS -9E RE%* P%R-M:IN:IN-ERES- -O %SSER- -9E C*%I0 2OR CO0PENS%-ION IN -9IS C%SE.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# ,eore discussin" t!e intrinsic wort! o petitioner3s discourse, ?e s!all address t!e issue o private respondent3s personalit# to see1 redress or t!e loss o t!e +lms. ?e believe, and so !old, t!at C!ua 0in is no stran"er to t!e cause o action instituted at t!e court o ori"in in spite o t!e messa"e conve#ed b# !im w!en !e sat on t!e witness stand w!ic! seems to lead to t!e opposite conclusion, t!usDc!anrobles lawlibrar# D rednad ;%--M. *%6RE-%Dc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# I. 0r. C!ua 0in, ma# I invite #our attention to E@!ibit %, particularl# t!e entr# w!ic! readsD W-o De 0il -!eatrical Corporation.3 -!is is t!e corporation w!ic! bou"!t supposedl# t!e motion picture +lms listed in t!is invoiceY ?I-NESSDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# %. It was not bou"!t b# t!e compan#, sir. It was onl# entrusted b# *oon" 1ee Pen to be distributed !ere in t!e P!ilippines. %--M. *%6RE-%Dc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# I. So t!at t!e +lms listed !ere .E@!ibit W%3 or plainti>/ is owned b# *oon" 7ee Pen Compan# o 9on"1on"Y ?I-NESSDc!anrob$es virtual $aw librar# %. Mes sir, and it was onl# entrusted to De 0il -!eatrical Corporation. I. -!is De 0il -!eatrical Corporation, is t!is an e@istin" corporationY %. Mes, sir. I. Now, t!ese +lms listed !erein w!ic! numbers ) in all are still owned b# t!e supplier, *oon" 7ee Pen Compan# o 9on"1on". Do I understand t!en t!at t!ose +lms w!ic! were supposedl# lost were not paid or b# De 0il -!eatrical CorporationY %. It was not paid, sir. It was aut!oriHed to be t!e distributor but we ta1e responsibilit# o all losses, o ever#t!in". I. Now, w!en #our made reerence to Wwe3, #ou reer actuall# to t!e De 0il -!eatrical CorporationY %. Mes, sir. I. Do I understand, t!ereore, t!at #ou, De 0il -!eatrical Corporation, !as alread# paid or t!e +lms in cartoons No. <, 5 and ), as speci+ed in t!e invoiceY %. It3s not #et paid, sir. .pp. G<:G), Record on %ppeal/ since w!at is important, per !is narration, is t!at !e assume t!e loss w!ile t!ese +lms are in !is custod# and t!at !e is accountable eit!er to *oon" 7ee Pen Compan# or to t!e De 0il -!eatrical Corporation s!ould !e ail to produce t!e +lms upon demand. On t!e !#pot!etical scenario, !ad t!e jud"ment o t!e trial court been adverse in t!e sense t!at t!e complaint was ordered dismissed, t!e pecuniar# burden or t!e loss will certainl# all on private respondent3s s!oulders, w!ic! obli"ation, it is needless to stress, will constitute a material and substantial injur# to !im. ?it!al, anot!er pivotal actor to consider is t!e letter rom petitioner on %u"ust &', $JG& addressed to !erein private respondent t!at sa#sDj"cDc!anrobles.com.p! ;?e are an receipt o #our claim or loss o ba""a"e in connection wit! #our travel to 0anila rom 9on"1on" on our 2li"!t. ?e sincerel# re"ret t!at t!is loss occurred and t!at despite a careul searc! we !ave been unsuccessul in recoverin" #our propert#. ?e eel we s!ould settle #our claim wit!out urt!er dela#. ?e wis! we could compensate #ou or t!e total amount o #our loss. 9owever, e@istin" rules and re"ulations establis!ed pursuant to t!e ?arsaw Convention on International Carria"e b# %ir .as amended b# t!e 9a"ue Protocol/ limit our liabilit# or losses o t!is nature to t!e sum o 6SX$A.)( or ever# 1ilo"ram o c!ec1ed:in ba""a"e. -!e wei"!t o #our 5 pieces o ba""a"e inclusive o its contents as stated in t!e Propert# Irre"ularit# Report .PIR/ and #our tic1et s!ows a total wei"!t o &( 1ilos. ,ased t!ereon, t!e avera"e wei"!t o & pieces o #our lost ba""a"e would come out to $( 1ilos. -!ereore, our ma@imum liabilit# or t!e & pieces s!ould be or a total amount o 6SX$A).(( .$( 1ilos @ 6SX$A.)(/. 6pon receipt o #our advise, we s!all !ave pa#ment remitted in #our avor.; .pp. $G:$', Record on %ppeal/ w!ic! seems to be at least a ailure to object to, i not an admission o, t!e personalit# o private respondent to initiate t!e suit below. -!e assurance made b# petitioner t!at it will compensate private respondent3s loss is a suOcient admission t!at indeed, private respondent !as t!e ri"!t to avail !imsel o t!e suit or t!e sum o mone#. It ollows, t!ereore, t!at w!atever testimon# ma# !ave been e@tracted t!rou"! cross:e@amination rom C!ua 0in, is o no le"al bearin" to w!at was e@pressl# conceded previousl# b# petitioner. Ot!erwise, ?e will in e>ect ta1e t!e cud"els or petitioner and in t!e process, permit it to e@tricate itsel rom t!e atal atermat! o an admission as a tenet under substantive law. O course, t!e plea o avoidance raised b# petitioner alon" t!is line is a1in to lac1 o cause o action w!ic! ma# be utiliHed even or t!e +rst time on appeal .Section $ ."/, Rule $AE Section &, Rule J, Revised Rules o Court/, but t!e adjective norm permittin" suc! a belated deense under Section &, Rule J o t!e Revised Rules o Court does not totall# rule out t!e application o ot!er le"al doctrines under substantive law, li1e estoppel, to t!e elastic undertones o petitioner. Now, as to w!et!er petitioner ma# utiliHe t!e provision under %rticle &&.&/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention w!ic! limits t!e liabilit# o a common carrier or loss o ba""a"e, ?e !ave to consider ot!er salient eatures t!ereo suc! as %rticle 5, para"rap! $ t!at readsDcralawnad ;2or t!e transportation o ba""a"e, ot!er t!an small personal objects o w!ic! t!e passen"er ta1es c!ar"e !imsel, t!e carrier must deliver a ba""a"e c!ec1.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# and t!e e@plicit wordin"s o %rticle 5, para"rap! 5 o t!e same Convention t!atDj"cDc!anrobles.com.p! ;-!e absence, irre"ularit#, or loss o t!e ba""a"e c!ec1s s!all not a>ect t!e e@istence or t!e validit# o t!e contract o transportation w!ic! s!all nonet!eless be subject to t!e rules o t!is Convention. Nevert!eless, i t!e carrier accepts ba""a"e wit!out a ba""a"e c!ec1 !avin" been delivered, or i t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 does not contain t!e particulars set out at .d/, ./, and .!/ above, t!e carrier s!all not be entitled to avail !imsel o t!ose provisions o t!e Convention w!ic! e@clude or limit !is liabilit#.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# because t!ese a@ioms will spell t!e di>erence between success and ailure o t!e petition at bar. It ma# be recalled t!at petitioner made a cate"orical distinction between a passen"er tic1et and a ba""a"e c!ec1 w!en petitioner responded to t!e complaint or a sum o mone# .para"rap!s G and ', %nswersE pp. A:', Record on %ppealE p. &, supra/. In its motion or reconsideration beore t!e court a 8uo, petitioner !ad a sudden c!an"e o !eart b# assertin" t!at t!e passen"er tic1et and t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 are one and t!e same t!in" .p. '$, Record on appeal/. On a later occasion, it stressed t!at t!e Wba""a"e ta"s3 were erroneousl# labeled as Wba""a"e c!ec1s3 under para"rap! G o its %nswer to t!e Complaint .p. <, Repl# ,rie or t!e PetitionerE p. JG, Rollo/. ,ut t!e 8uestion o semantics on w!et!er t!e passen"er tic1et, t!e ba""a"e c!ec1, and t!e ta" reer to t!e same object is undoubtedl# wit!out le"al si"ni+cance and will not obliterate t!e act t!at t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 was not presented b# petitioner in t!e trial court inasmuc! as it merel# relied on, and adopted private respondent3s e@!ibits, none o w!ic! was o>ered or t!e purpose o provin" t!e missin" lin1, so to spea1 .pp. )G:)', Record on %ppeal/. -o recti# t!ese lapses, petitioner ar"ued t!at it is not in a position to introduce t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 in evidence since private respondent as passen"er, is t!e one w!o retains possession t!ereo. Met, suc! pretense does not sit well wit! w!at is e@pected o petitioner as an air carrier under %rticle 5 .&/, Section II o t!e ?arsaw Convention t!atDj"cDc!anrobles.com.p! ;-!e ba""a"e c!ec1 s!all be made out in duplicate, one part or t!e passen"er and t!e ot!er part or t!e carrier.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# Conse8uentl#, petitioner can not capitaliHe on t!e limited liabilit# clause under %rticle && .&/ o t!e ?arsaw Convention because o t!e une8uivocal condition set ort! under t!e second sentence o %rticle 5, para"rap! 5 t!atDc!anrobles.comDcralawDred ;. . . i t!e carrier accepts ba""a"e wit!out a ba""a"e c!ec1 !avin" been delivered, a i t!e ba""a"e c!ec1 does not contain t!e particulars set out at .d/, ./, and .!/ above, t!e carrier s!all not be entitled to avail !imsel o t!ose provisions o t!e Convention w!ic! e@clude or limit !is liabilit#.;cralaw virtua$aw librar# Petitioner contends t!at it is covered b# t!e +rst and not b# t!e second sentence o %rticle 5, para"rap! 5 .pa"e ', supra/. ,ut t!e ar"ument as proerred, re8uires 6s to read somet!in" w!ic! is not so stated between t!e lines or t!e +rst sentence spea1s onl# o t!e ;e@istence; or t!e ;validit#; o t!e contract o transportation w!ile t!e 8uer# on ;liabilit#; is particularl# and directl# resolved b# t!e second sentence. -o be sure, and even assumin" in "ratia ar"umenti t!at an inconsistenc# e@ists, t!e +rst sentence must be construed as t!e "eneral proposition "overnin" t!e e@istence or validit# o t!e contract o transportation w!ic! must #ield to t!e particular rule under t!e second sentence re"ardin" liabilit#. 2urt!ermore, even i ?e consider t!e two sentences as particular in nature, t!e rule !as been laid down t!at t!e clause w!ic! comes later s!all be "iven e>ect upon t!e presumption t!at it e@presses t!e dominant purpose o t!e instrument .Cra!am Paper Co. v. National Newspapers %sso. .0o. %pp./ $J< S.?. $((<E ,arnett v. 0erc!ants3 *. Ins. Co., 'G O1l. 5&/. ?9ERE2ORE, t!e petition or review is !ereb# DIS0ISSED or lac1 o merit. SO ORDERED.