FACTS: In 1965, Spouses Mendoza approached Tirso Reyes, manager of a branch of t

he Philippine Travel Bureau , a travel agency, for a world tour they intended to
make with their daughter and a niece. According to the itinerary given by Reyes
, three segments of the trip, the longest, was via KLM. The spouses decided that
one of the routes they will take was a Barcelona-Lourdes route with knowledge t
hat only one airline, Aer Lingus, served it.
Reyes made the necessary reservations with the approval of the spouses. In respo
nse to this, KLM secured the seat reservations from the carriers which would fer
ry the Spouses and their daughter and a niece throughout their trip, with the ex
ception of Aer Lingus. When the Mendozas left the Philippines, they were issued
KLM tickets for the entire trip. However, their coupon for Aer Lingus was marked
on request .
When they were in Germany, they went to the KLM office and obtained a confirmati
on from Aer Lingus. At the airport in Barcelona, the Mendozas and their companio
ns checked in for their flight to Lourdes. However, although their daughter and
niece were allowed to take the flight, the spouses Mendozas were off loaded on o
rders of the Aer Lingus manager, who brusquely shoved them aside with the aid of
a policeman and shouted at them (Conos! Ignorantes Filipinos!). Mrs. Mendoza la
ter called the manager of Aer Lingus and asked that they be given the means to g
et to Lourdes, but their request was denied. Acting on the advice of a stranger,
the spouses Mendoza took a train ride to Lourdes instead.
Thus, they filed a complaint for damages against KLM for breach of contract of c
arriage. The trial court decided in favor of the Mendozas. On appeal, the CA aff
irmed the decision.
KLM s arguments:
1.
They should be exculpated on the basis of the Warsaw Convention of which
the Philippine Government is a party by adherence. According to Art. 30 of said
convention, the aggrieved party can only take action against the carrier if an a
ccident or delay occurred. Since no such accident or delay occurred, they should
be free from liability.
2.
Under the conditions of the contract placed on the inside front cover of t
he ticket, [a] carrier issuing a ticket or checking baggage for carriage over the
lines of others does so only as agent.
3.
All that KLM did was to request seat reservations. Therefore, KLM merely
acted as a ticket-issuing agent.
Spouses Mendoza s arguments:
1.
Art. 30 of the Warsaw Convention cannot be applied to this case for it inv
olves not action or delay but willful misconduct on the part of KLM s agent, the A
er Lingus. Art. 25 of the Warsaw Convention is instructive on the matter.
2.
The condition referred to by KLM on the conditions of the contract is writ
ten in so small a print that a magnifying glass is needed to view it.
3.
The first paragraph of the same conditions indubitably states that the c
ontract was one of continuous air transportation.
4.
The contract of air transportation was exclusively between the Spouses M
endoza and KLM, the latter merely endorsing its performance to other carriers li
ke Aer Lingus.
ISSUES: WON KLM is liable for breach of contract of carriage
RULING: YES, KLM is liable for breach of contract of carriage.
RATIO:
1.
The provision of the Warsaw Convention being relied upn by KLM is inapplic
able. It presupposes that accident or delay occurred, neither of which happened
at Barcelona Airport. Instead, it was Aer Lingus that refused to take the Mendoz

as to their destination.
2.
KLM s reliance on the conditions of the contract is untenable. Not only was
the fine print so small, no steps were taken by KLM to inform the Mendozas of su
ch conditions. Therefore, the Mendozas cannot be bound by the provision in quest
ion wherein KLM s unilaterally declared that it was a mere ticket-issuing agent.
3.
The same conditions also say that the carriage to be provided by several
carriers is to be regarded as a single operation, which is the direct opposite
of KLM s theory that the Mendoxas entered into several independent contracts with
the carriers that took them to their destinations.
4.
The breach of KLM s guarantee was further aggravated by the highly arbitra
ry and discourteous act of the Aer Lingus official.
DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dated August 14,
1969 is affirmed, at KLM's cost.