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-
Singapore-Athens-Larnaca-Rome-Turin-Zurich-Geneva-Copenhagen-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 Airline’s 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.) Carrier’s 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 petitioner’s 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.