American Airlines v.

CA

Facts
 Mendoza purchased from SAL conjunction tickets for MNL-SG-Athens-Larnaca-
Rome-Turin-Zurich-Geneva-Copenhagen-NY. Petitioner was not a participating
airline in any of the segments in the itinerary under the conjunction tickets.
 In Geneva, Mendoza decided to forego his trip to Copenhagen and to go straight
to NY. He exchanged the unused portion of the conjunction ticket for a one-way
ticket from Geneva to NY from petitioner. Petitioner issued its own ticket to
Mendoza in Geneva and claimed the value of the unused portion of the ticket from
the IATA clearing house in Geneva.
 Mendoza filed an action for damages before RTC Cebu for the alleged
embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at the Geneva Airport when the
petitioner’s security officers prevented him from boarding the plane, detained him
for about an hour and allowed him to board the plane only after all the other
passengers have boarded.

Issue & Ruling

WON the contract of transportation between petitioner and respondent is a single
operation and part of the contract of transportation entered into by the latter with
Singapore Airlines in Manila. YES.
 Petitioner contends that the issuance of a new ticket in Geneva created a contract
of carriage separate and distinct from that entered by private respondent in Manila.
-> SC says this is wrong.
 Members of the IATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein
they act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers
to boost ticket sales worldwide and at the same time provide passengers easy
access to airlines which are otherwise inaccessible in some parts of the world.
Booking and reservation among airline members are allowed even by telephone
and it has become an accepted practice among them.
 Thus, when the petitioner accepted the unused portion of the conjunction tickets,
entered it in the IATA clearing house and undertook to transport the private
respondent over the route covered by the unused portion of the conjunction tickets,
i.e., Geneva to New York, the petitioner tacitly recognized its commitment under
the IATA pool arrangement to act as agent of the principal contracting airline,
Singapore Airlines, as to the segment of the trip the petitioner agreed to undertake.
 As such, the petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to take the place of the
carrier originally designated in the original conjunction ticket.