Philippine Airlines vs Civil Aeronautics Board

Case Digest
(270 SCRA 538)
Facts: Grand Air applied for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity with the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB). The Chief Hearing Officer issued a
notice of hearing directing Grand Air to serve a copy
of the application and notice to all scheduled
Philippine Domestic operators. Grand Air filed its
compliance and requested for a Temporary Operating
Permit (TOP). PAL filed an opposition to the
application on the ground that the CAB had no
jurisdiction to hear the application until Grand Air first
obtains a franchise to operate from Congress. The
Chief Hearing Officer denied the opposition and the
CAB approved the issuance of the TOP for a period of
3 months. The opposition for the TOP was likewise
denied. The CAB justified its assumption of
jurisdiction over Grand Airs application on the basis
of Republic Act 776 which gives it the specific power
to issue any TOP or Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity.
Issue: Whether or not the CAB can issue a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity or TOP even
though the prospective operator does not have a
legislative franchise?
Held: Yes, as mentioned by the CAB, it is duly
authorized to do so under Republic Act 776 and a
legislative franchise is not necessary before it may do
so, since Congress has delegated the authority to
authorize the operation of domestic air transport
services to the CAB, an administrative agency. The
delegation of such authority is not without limits since
Congress had set specific standard and limitations on
how such authority should be exercised.
Public convenience and necessity exists when the
proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the
public and supply a need which the existing facilities
do not adequately afford.
Thus, the Board should be allowed to continue
hearing the application, since it has jurisdiction over it
provided that the applicant meets all the requirements
of the law.
MAPA VS C-A (275-286)
Mapa purchased from TWA Trans World Airlines 2
airline tickets in Bankok Thailand, for Los AngelesNew York Boston St. Louis Chicago, all of the
USA. The domicile of the carrier TWA was Kansas
City, Missouri USA, Where its principal place of
business was likewise located. The place of business
of TWA where the contract was made was in Bangkok
Thailand. The place of destination was Chicago-USA.
The MAPAS left Manila on board Pal for L-A, They left
checked in 7 pieces of luggages at TWA counter at
JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they
went to the wrong gate. Hey were however allowed to
take a later TWA plane to Boston which was delayed
because of the thunder storm. Upon arrival at boston
they were only retrieved 3 out of 7 luggages which
loss was immediately reported to TWA with a total
value of S 2,560 as constituting full satisfaction of
their claim which the MAPAS accepted as partial
payment for the actual loss of their baggages.

Thereafter MAPA filed a case against TWA in the

Philippines Similar to the case of Santos III , TWA
move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on
section 28(1) warsaw contending that the complaint
should have been brought either in Bankok where the
contract was entered into , or in boston which was the
place of destination or in Kansas City which was the
carriers domicile and principla place of business.
MAPAS claimed that the WARSAW convention was
not applicable because the contract was not an
Internationl Transportation as contemplated under the
provision of the WARSAW convention the RTC as
affirmed by the C-A dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Is the Warsaw Convention applicable?
Held: Warsaw convention was not applicable because
the contract does not involve an INTERANTIONAL
TRANPORTATION base on the two categories.
(1) that where the place of departure and the place of
destination are situated within the territories of two
High Contracting Parties regardless of whether or not
there be a break in the transportation or a
transshipment; and
(2) that where the place of departure and the place of
destination are within the territory of a single High
Contracting Party if there is an agreed stopping place
within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate,
or authority of another power, even though the power
is not a party of the Convention.
Whether
the
contracts
were
of international
transportation is to be solely determined from the
TWA tickets issued to them in Bangkok, Thailand,
which showed that their itinerary was Los AngelesNew York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago. Accordingly,
since the place of departure (Los Angeles) and the
place of destination (Chicago) are both within the
territory of one High Contracting Party, with no agreed
stopping place in a territory subject to the sovereignty,
mandate, suzerainty or authority of another Power,
the contracts did not constitute 'international
transportation' as defined by the convention.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS,
HON. BERNARD L. SALAS and DEMOCRITO
MENDOZA, respondents
G.R No. 116044-45.
March 9, 2000
Facts:
Private respondent purchased from Singapore Airlines
in Manila conjunction tickets from Manila-SingaporeAthens-Larnaca-Rome-Turin-Zurich-GenevaCopenhagen-New York. In Geneva, he decided to
forego his trip to Copenhagen and go straight to New
York. In the absence of a direct flight under his
conjunction tickets from Geneva to New York, he
exchanged the unused portion of the conjunction
ticket for a one way ticket from Geneva to New York
from American Airlines, which issued its own ticket to
respondent in Geneva and claimed the value of the
unused portion of the conjunction ticket from the
International Air Transport Association (IATA) clearing
house in Geneva. In September, 1989, respondent
filed an action for damages before the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu for the alleged embarrassment and
mental anguish he suffered at the Geneva Airport
when American Airlines security officers prevented
him from boarding the plane.
Issue:

Whether or not the issuance of American Airlines of a

new ticket in exchange of the conjunction ticket the
respondent purchased in Manila bar him from seeking
recourse in Philippine courts.
Ruling:
The petitioner contends that under Article 28 of the
Warsaw Convention, action for damages may only be
brought upon the following courst:
a.)
Domicile
of
the
carrier
b.)
Carriers
principal
place
of
business
c.) Place where carrier has a place of business
d.) Place of destination
Since neither of these elements is present in the
case, the petitioner contends that plaintiff cannot file
the case in the Philippines. He further posits that the
second contract cannot be deemed as an extension
of the first as the petitioner airline is not a participating
airline in any of the destinations under the first
contract.

Respondent on the other hand contends that the

second contract she entered into at Geneva is part
and parcel of the first contract, thus the third option
under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention would
apply to him. He further pointed out that petitioner
cannot deny the contract of agency with Singapore
Airlines after it honored the conjunction tickets issued
by the latter.
The court ruled that petitioners argument is void of
merit with reference to Article 1(3) of the Warsaw
Convention. According to the said article,
transportation to be performed by several carriers
shall be deemed as one and undivided. The number
of tickets issued does not detract from the oneness of
the contract of carriage. Hence, the third option of the
plaintiff under Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention is
clothed with jurisdiction.