CIVIL LAW

EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER v. BRITISH AIRWAYS

G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010

SUBJECT/ TOPIC: Damages

THESIS STATEMENT:
Edna Diago Lhuillier filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissing the Complaint for damages filed by her against the
British Airways.

FACTS:
On February 28, 2005, Edna Lhuillier took the flight 548 of British Airways from London,
United Kingdom to Rome, Italy. On board, she asked Julian Halliday, a flight attendant of the
British Airways, to help her in placing her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin but instead
of helping her, he allegedly refused and made a sarcastic remark. When the plane was about to
land to Rome, Italy, Nickolas Kerrigan, also a flight attendant, allegedly singled her out from
among all the passengers in the business class section to lecture on plane safety even if she is
a frequent traveler and made her to appear ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and in need of lecturing
on the safety rules. When she assured Kerrigan that she knew the safety rules and regulation
for being a frequent traveler, Kerrigan allegedly thrust his face a few centimeters away from
the face of Edna and told her menacingly that he dislike her attitude. Upon arrival in Rome,
Edna complained the flight attendants to the British Airways’ ground manager and demanded
an apology but to her disappointment, the ground manager told her that the flight attendants
were just doing their jobs.
Hence, Edna filed a Complaint for damages before the RTC of Makati City praying that
respondent, British Airways, be ordered to pay Php 5 Million as moral damages, Php 2 Million
as nominal damages, Php 1 Million as exemplary damages, Php 300,000.00 as attorney’s fees,
Php 200,000.00 as litigation expenses, and cost of the suit. In 2005, summons together with the
copy of the complaint was served through Violeta Echevarria, General Manager of Euro-
Philippine Airline Services, Inc. Later on, British Airways, by way of special appearance
through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds for lack of jurisdiction over case
and over the person of the respondent, alleging that in pursuant to the Warsaw Convention in
which Philippines is a signatory, only the courts in London, United Kingdom and Rome, Italy
have jurisdiction over the complaint for damages. Art. 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention
provides that “action for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, either before
the court of domicile of the carrier or his principal place of business, or where he has a place
of business through which the contract has been made, or before the court of the place of
destination. Since British Airways’ principal place of business and domicile are in London,
Edna bought her ticket in Rome (via Jeepney Travel S.A.S), and Rome, Italy is Edna’s place
of destination, then the proper court would be either in London or Rome. The Motion to
Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over person of the respondent was based on the summons that
were served erroneously on Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc. which is not the British
Airways’ resident agent in the Philippines. In June 2005, in response to the Order issued by the
trial court requiring Edna to file her Comment/ Opposition on the Motion to Dismiss and for
British Airways to file a reply, Edna filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Formal
Amendment to the Complaint and Issuance of Alias Summons after Edna found out through
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the resident agent of British Airways is
Alonzo Ancheta. In September 2005, Edna filed a Motion to Resolve Pending Incident and
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. The Petitioner argues that the cause of action arose from the
tortious conduct of the airline personnel in violation of the provisions of the Civil Code on
Human Relations and not from the contract of carriage. However the RTC, ruled in favor of
the British Airways granting the Motion of Dismiss. Although the RTC sympathizes with the
alleged ill-treatment to the petitioner but, in applying the agreement concluded in the Warsaw
Convention to which the Philippines is a signatory, the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the
case. However, the RTC reiterated that the referral to the court of proper jurisdiction does not
constitute constructive denial of Edna’s right to have access to Philippine courts since the
Warsaw Convention itself provided jurisdiction over cases arising from international
transportation. The Philippines must comply with the treaty stipulations in good faith according
to the doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda. Unsatisfied, Edna filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but the RTC denied. Hence, the Petition for Review on Certiorari directly to the Supreme Court
(SC).

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over tortious conduct committed against
a Filipino citizen and resident by airline personnel of a foreign carrier travelling beyond
the territorial limit of any foreign country.
2. WON the respondent air carrier’s Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case and over its person is considered to be a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the lower court in the Philippines.

HELD:
1. NO. The Philippine courts does NOT have jurisdiction over tortious conduct against a
Filipino citizen by airline personnel.
The Philippines, as a signatory to the Warsaw Convention, is deemed to acknowledged
and comply with the treaty stipulations and apply the principles of International Law as
part of the law of the land in pursuant to Art. 2 Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. As
provided in the Art. 1 of the Warsaw Convention, “This Convention applies to all
international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward. It
applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport
undertaking.” The Convention also provide for the definition of ‘international carriage’
which means “…any carriage in which, according to the contract made by the parties,
the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in
the carriage or a transshipment, are situated either within the territories of two High
 Contracting parties…” Since the place of departure (London) and place of destination
(Rome) are both signatories of the said Convention, therefore, the Convention also
applies to the case where an allegedly tortious conduct took place in an air travel and
that the transport of Edna is considered an international carriage within the concept of
the Convention. Since the Convention applies to the case, then the jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case and over the person of the British Airways must be in
accordance with the Convention, that is either the court where the carrier is domiciled
(London); the court where the carrier has its principal place of business (London); the
court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made
(Rome); or the court of the place of destination (Rome) and not in the Philippine courts.
The Court affirmed the rulings of the RTC that the Philippine lower courts do NOT
have jurisdiction of the case even if the case arose from a tortious act committed by
flight attendants against a Filipino citizen aboard an air carrier as ruled by SC in Santos
III v. Northwest Orient Airlines that “the allegation of willful misconduct resulting in
a tort is insufficient to exclude the case from the comprehension of the Warsaw
Convention.”

2. NO. The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case and over its person is NOT considered to be a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the lower court.
The Petitioner contends that Respondent British Airways has voluntarily submitted
itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when it filed a Motion to Dismiss but as the
Court ruled in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated that
“special appearance before the court challenging its jurisdiction over the person through
a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other grounds is NOT tantamount to
estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and
such is NOT constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court” in
accordance with Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which
provides that “The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent
to service of summons. The inclusion in a Motion to Dismiss of other grounds aside
from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a
voluntary appearance” which means that voluntary appearance of the defendant is
without qualification as if it is accepted that the defendant has deemed to waived his
defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons.
Therefore, the respondent’s filing the Motion to Dismiss and other pleadings before a
trial court cannot be deemed to be a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the said
trial court.

Submitted by:
Jenova Jireh C. Arsua
JD1-M1