PhilippineAirlinesvsHon.

AdrianoSavillo,
Petitioner:PAL
Respondent:SimplicioGrinoandHon.AdrianoSavillo
Facts:
PrivaterespondentwasinvitedtoparticipateinASEANSeniorsAnnualGolfTournamentheldinJakarta,
Indonesia.HeandseveralcompanionsdecidedtopurchasetheirrespectiveticketsfromPALwithfollowing
pointsofpassage:MANILASGJARKARTASGMANILA.Privaterespondentwithhiscompanions
weremadetounderstandbyPALthatitsplanewouldtakethemfromManilatoSg,whileSingaporeAirlines
wouldtakethemfromSgtoJakarta.
PrivaterespondentandhiscompanionstookthePALflighttoSingaporeandarrivedat6pm.Uponarrival,they
proceededtoSingaporeAirlinesofficetocheckinfortheirflighttoJakartascheduledat8pm.Singapore
AirlinesrejectedtheticketsbecausetheywerenotendorsedbyPAL.Itwasexplainedtotheprivaterespondent
thatif SingaporeAirlines honoredthe tickets withoutPALs endorsement, PAL would notpaySingapore
Airlinesfortheirpassage.PrivaterespondenttriedtocontactPALsofficeattheairport,onlytofindoutthatit
wasclosed.
Privaterespondentwassubjectedtohumiliation.Eventually,theprivaterespondentsandhiscompanionswere
forcedtopurchaseticketsfromGarudaAirlinesandboarditslastflightboundforJakarata.Whentheyarrived
inJakarta,thepartywhowassupposedtofetchthemfromairporthadalreadyleftandtheyhadtoarrangefor
theirtranposrtationtothehotelataverylatehour.Theprvaterespondentwasunabletoparticipateinthe
tournamentbecausehegotill.
PrivaterespondentuponhisreturntoPhilippines,sentademandletterandanothertoSingaporeAirlines.Both
airlines disowned liability and blamed each other for the fiasco. Private respondent filed a complaint for
damages.
PALfiledaMotiontoDismissonthegroundthatthesaidcomplaintwasbarredongroundofprescription
underSection1(f)ofRule16ofRulesofCourt.Also,theyarguedthatArticle29ofWarsawConvention
governedthiscase:anyclaimfordamagesinconnectionwithinternationaltransportationofpersonsissubject
toprescriptionperiodoftwoyears.SincethecomplaintwasfiledmorethanthreeyearsafterPALreceivedthe
demandletter,itwasalreadybarredbyprescription.
MotiontoDismisswasdenied.ItmaintainedtheCivilCodenottheWarsawConvention.
CAdismissedPetitionforCertiorarifiledbyPAL.Hencethispetition
Issue:
WhetherornotCAerredinnotapplyingtheprovisionsofthwwarsawconventiondespitethefactthatGrinos
causeofactionarosefromabreachofcontractofInternationalAirTransport
Held:
NO.TheseclaimsarecoveredbytheCivilCodeprovisionsontort,andnotwithinthepurviewoftheWarsaw
Convention.Hence,theapplicableprescriptionperiodisthatprovidedunderArticle1146oftheCivilCode:

Art.1146.Thefollowingactionsmustbeinstitutedwithinfouryears:
.

(1)Uponaninjurytotherightsoftheplaintiff;

(2)Uponaquasidelict.

TheWarsawConventiondoesnotexclusivelyregulatetherelationshipbetweenpassengerandcarrieron
aninternationalflight.TheCourtcitedUnitedAirlinesv.Uy(G.R.No.127768November19,1999)which
distinguishedbetween1)damagetoapassengersbaggageand2)hishumiliationatthehandsofanairlines
employees.There,theCourtheldthatthefirstcauseofactionwascoveredbytheWarsawConvention
whichprescribesin2years,whilethesecondwascoveredbytheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeontorts,
whichprescribesin4years.AndsotheCourtheldthatS.GsComplaintforDamageswascoveredbythe
CivilCodeandwasnotyetbarredunderitsprovisions.