Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Transportation Law Case Report: Pal vs. Ca GR. No. 119641

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Lavina
    1) Dr. Josefino Miranda and his wife traveled from Surigao City to the US and back using Philippine Airlines (PAL). On their return trip, their baggage was misplaced, causing them to miss connecting flights. 2) After further delays and issues with accommodations, the Mirandas arrived back in Surigao City two days later than originally scheduled. 3) They filed a damages case against PAL. PAL argued that the Warsaw Convention, which limits airline liability, should apply. However, the court found PAL employees acted with willful misconduct, so the Civil Code could be applied instead of limiting liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Transportation Law Case Report: Pal vs. Ca GR. No. 119641

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Lavina
    102 views10 pages
    1) Dr. Josefino Miranda and his wife traveled from Surigao City to the US and back using Philippine Airlines (PAL). On their return trip, their baggage was misplaced, causing them to miss connecting flights. 2) After further delays and issues with accommodations, the Mirandas arrived back in Surigao City two days later than originally scheduled. 3) They filed a damages case against PAL. PAL argued that the Warsaw Convention, which limits airline liability, should apply. However, the court found PAL employees acted with willful misconduct, so the Civil Code could be applied instead of limiting liability.

    Original Description:

    transpo digest report

    Original Title

    TRANSPO-1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Dr. Josefino Miranda and his wife traveled from Surigao City to the US and back using Philippine Airlines (PAL). On their return trip, their baggage was misplaced, causing them to miss connecting flights. 2) After further delays and issues with accommodations, the Mirandas arrived back in Surigao City two days later than originally scheduled. 3) They filed a damages case against PAL. PAL argued that the Warsaw Convention, which limits airline liability, should apply. However, the court found PAL employees acted with willful misconduct, so the Civil Code could be applied instead of limiting liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    102 views10 pages

    Transportation Law Case Report: Pal vs. Ca GR. No. 119641

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Lavina
    1) Dr. Josefino Miranda and his wife traveled from Surigao City to the US and back using Philippine Airlines (PAL). On their return trip, their baggage was misplaced, causing them to miss connecting flights. 2) After further delays and issues with accommodations, the Mirandas arrived back in Surigao City two days later than originally scheduled. 3) They filed a damages case against PAL. PAL argued that the Warsaw Convention, which limits airline liability, should apply. However, the court found PAL employees acted with willful misconduct, so the Civil Code could be applied instead of limiting liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 10

    PAL vs.

    CA
    GR. No. 119641
    Transportation Law
    Case Report
    In May, 1988, Dr. Josefino Miranda and his wife, Luisa, who were residents of
    Surigao City, went to the United States of America on a regular flight of Philippine
    Airlines, Inc. (PAL). On June 19, 1988, after a stay of over a month there, they
    obtained confirmed bookings from PAL’s San Francisco Office for PAL Flight PR 101
    from San Francisco to Manila via Honolulu on June 21, 1988; PAL Flight PR 851 from
    Manila to Cebu on June 24, 1988; and PAL Flight PR 905 from Cebu to Surigao also
    on June 24, 1988. On June 21, 1988, private respondents boarded PAL Flight PR 101
    in San Francisco with 5 pieces of baggage. After a stopover at Honolulu, and upon
    arrival in Manila on June 23, 1988, they were told by the PAL personnel that their
    baggage consisting of two balikbayan boxes, two pieces of luggage and one
    fishing
    rod case were off-loaded at Honolulu, Hawaii due to weight limitations.
    Consequently, private respondents missed their connecting flight from Manila
    to
    Cebu City, as originally scheduled, since they had to wait for their baggage
    which
    arrived the following day, June 24, 1988, after their pre-scheduled connecting
    flight
    had left. They consequently also missed their other scheduled connecting
    flight
    from Cebu City to Surigao City.
    Cont.
    On June 25, 1988, they departed for Cebu City and therefrom private respondents
    had to transfer to PAL Flight 471 for Surigao City. On the way to Surigao City, the
    pilot announced that they had to return to Mactan Airport due to some mechanical
    problem. While at Mactan Airport, the passengers were provided by PAL with lunch
    and were booked for the afternoon flight to Surigao City. However, said flight was
    also canceled. Since there were no more flights for Surigao City that day, private
    respondents asked to be billeted at the Cebu Plaza Hotel where they usually stay
    whenever they happen to be in Cebu City. They were, however, told by the PAL
    employees that they could not be accommodated at said hotel supposedly because
    it was fully booked. Contrarily, when Dr. Miranda called the hotel, he was informed
    that he and his wife could be accommodated there. Although reluctant at first, PAL
    eventually agreed to private respondents’ overnight stay at said hotel.
    Inasmuch as the shuttle bus had already left by the time private respondents were
    ready to go to the hotel, PAL offered them P 150.00 to include the fare for the
    return trip to the airport. Dr. Miranda asked for P 150.00 more as he and his wife,
    along with all of their baggages, could not be accommodated in just one taxi, aside
    from the need for tipping money for hotel boys. Upon refusal of this simple request,
    Dr. Miranda then declared that he would forego the amenities offered by PAL. Thus,
    the voucher for P 150.00 and the authority for the hotel accommodations prepared
    by PAL were voided due to private respondents’ decision not to avail themselves
    thereof.
    Cont.
    To aggravate the muddled situation, when private respondents tried to
    retrieve
    their baggage, they were told this time that the same were loaded on another
    earlier PAL flight to Surigao City. Thus, private respondents proceeded to the
    hotel
    sans their baggage and of which they were deprived for the remainder of
    their trip.
    Private respondents were finally able to leave on board the first PAL flight to
    Surigao City only on June 26, 1988. Thereafter, they instituted an action for
    damages which, after trial as well as on appeal, was decided in their favor.
    Issue:

    Whether or not the provisions of the


    Warsaw convention be the controlling
    law in the case at bar
    Held:
    There was no error on the part of the CA when it refused to apply
    the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, for in the words of
    this court in the aforequoted Cathay Pacific case
    X x x Although the warsaw convention has the force and effect of
    law in this country, being a treaty commitment assumed by the
    Philippine Government said convention does not operate as an
    exclusive enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier
    liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of
    the extent of that liability.
    The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable in the
    enumerated cases and under certain limitations. However, it
    must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
    Code and pertinent laws.
    It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability
    for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under
    the contract of carriage, especially if wilful misconduct on the
    part of carrier’s employees is found or established, which is
    the case before us

    You might also like