Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines

FACTS: The petitioner is a minor and a resident of the Philippines. Private respondent NOA is a foreign corporation with principal office in Minnesota, and licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the Philippines. 

Petitioner purchased from NOA a round-trip ticket in San Francisco, for his flight from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back. The scheduled departure date from Tokyo was December 20, 1986. No date was specified for his return to San Francisco.
On December 19, 1986, the petitioner checked in at the NOA counter in the San Francisco airport for his scheduled departure to Manila. Despite a previous confirmation and re-confirmation, he was informed that he had no reservation for his flight from Tokyo to Manila. He therefore had to be wait-listed. 

Petitioner sued NOA for damages in RTC Makati. NOA moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Citing the above-quoted article, it contended that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before: 

1. the court of the domicile of the carrier; 
2. the court of its principal place of business; 
3. the court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made; 
4. the court of the place of destination. 

The private respondent contended that the Philippines was not its domicile nor was this its principal place of business. Neither was the petitioner’s ticket issued in this country nor was his destination Manila but San Francisco in the United States. 

RTC dismissed the case.

Petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision or the RTC.

MR was also denied. 

ISSUE: The constitutionality of Art. 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention; and the jurisdiction of Philippine courts over the case.

HELD: RP is a party to the Warsaw Convention. The Convention is thus a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government and, as such, has the force and effect of law in this country.

Since the flight involved in the case at bar is international, the same being from the United States to the Philippines and back to the United States, it is subject to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, including Article 28(1), which enumerates the four places where an action for damages may be brought. 

The place of destination, within the meaning of the Warsaw Convention, is determined by the terms of the contract of carriage or, specifically in this case, the ticket between the passenger and the carrier. Examination of the petitioner’s ticket shows that his ultimate destination is San Francisco. Although the date of the return flight was left open, the contract of carriage between the parties indicates that NOA was bound to transport the petitioner to San Francisco from Manila. Manila should therefore be considered merely an agreed stopping place and not the destination. 

A number of countries have signified their concern over the problem of citizens being denied access to their own courts because of the restrictive provision of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. Among these is the United States, which has proposed an amendment that would enable the passenger to sue in his own domicile if the carrier does business in that jurisdiction. 

The proposal was incorporated in the Guatemala Protocol amending the Warsaw Convention. But it is still ineffective because it has not yet been ratified by the required minimum number of contracting parties. Pending such ratification, the petitioner will still have to file his complaint only in any of the four places designated by Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention.