G.R. No.

171092 March 15, 2010

EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER, Petitioner, vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, Respondent.

Opening line: Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta cum necessitate juris dicendi. Jurisdiction is a power introduced for
the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice.

- Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondent before RTC Makati
o Alleged that she took respondents flight 548 from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy.
Once on board, she allegedly requested Julian Halliday (Halliday), one of the respondents flight
attendants, to assist her in placing her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin.
Halliday allegedly refused to help and assist her, and even sarcastically remarked that "If I were to
help all 300 passengers in this flight, I would have a broken back!"
o Petitioner further alleged that when the plane was about to land in Rome, Italy, another flight attendant,
Nickolas Kerrigan (Kerrigan), singled her out from among all the passengers in the business class section to
lecture on plane safety.
Allegedly, Kerrigan made her appear to the other passengers to be ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and in
need of lecturing on the safety rules and regulations of the plane.
Affronted, petitioner assured Kerrigan that she knew the planes safety regulations being a frequent
traveler.
o Thereupon, Kerrigan allegedly thrust his face a mere few centimeters away from that of the petitioner and
menacingly told her that "We dont like your attitude."
o When she arrived in Rome she demanded an apology from the ground manager but he replied that they were
just doing their job
- So she filed the present action
- Summons + complaint were served on respondent thru Violeta Echevarria, General Manager of Euro-Philippine Airline
Svcs Inc
- Respondent, thru special appearance by counsel, filed MTD on grounds of no JD over case or person of defendant
o Said that only courts of London UK or Rome Italy have JD over the complaint pursuant to Warsaw
Convention Art 28(1)
An action for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, either before the court of
domicile of the carrier or his principal place of business, or where he has a place of business through
which the contract has been made, or before the court of the place of destination.
o Since respondent was domiciled in London, principal place of business is in London, and petitioner bought her
ticket in Italy, and Rome is petitioners destination, complaint should only be filed in in London or Rome
o Also alleged that no JD over person of respondent because summons were served on Euro-PH Airline Svcs.
Inc, which wasnt its resident agent in PH
- RTC ordered petition to file her comment/opposition but instead she filed an Urgen Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Formal
Amendment to Complaint and Issuance of Alias Summons
o Alleged that upon verification with SEC, resident agent is Alonzo Q. Ancheta
- Petitioner then filed a Motion to Resolve Pending Incident and Opposition to MTD
- RTC granted MTD
o Courts have to apply the principles of international law, and are bound by treaty stipulations entered into by
the Philippines which form part of the law of the land. One of this is the Warsaw Convention. Being a
signatory thereto, the Philippines adheres to its stipulations and is bound by its provisions including the place
where actions involving damages to plaintiff is to be instituted, as provided for under Article 28(1) thereof.
o Since PH isnt domicile of defendant nor principal place of business, our courts have divested of JD over cases
for damages
o Petitioners ticket wasnt issued in PH either but Rome
o Re: summons, issue is moot because no subject-matter JD
- Petitioner filed MR, which RTC denied
- Hence this petition
- Petitioners ARG:
o Her cause of action didnt rise from contract of carriage but from tortious conduct of air personnel, violating
provisions of NCC on Human relations
o Since her COA was not predicated on contract of carriage, asserts that she has the option to pursue this case in
this JD pursuant to PH laws
- Respondents ARG:
 o petitioners claim for damages fell within the ambit of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. As such, the
same can only be filed before the courts of London, United Kingdom or Rome, Italy.

Issues:

1. W/N PH Courts have JD over tortious conduct against a PH citizen and resident by airline personnel of a foreign carrier
travelling beyond territorial limit of any foreign country, and thus outside the ambit ofWarsaw Convention NO.

2. W/N respondent in filing the MTD submitted itself to JD of lower court, esp when the lawyer arguing for it is the resident
agent of carrier NO. Civpro. I didnt discuss this na.

Held:

- NO MERIT.
- Warsaw Convention has force and effect of law in this country.
- Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines:
o The Republic of the Philippines is a party to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to
International Transportation by Air, otherwise known as the Warsaw Convention. It took effect on February
13, 1933. The Convention was concurred in by the Senate, through its Resolution No. 19, on May 16, 1950.
The Philippine instrument of accession was signed by President Elpidio Quirino on October 13, 1950, and was
deposited with the Polish government on November 9, 1950. The Convention became applicable to the
Philippines on February 9, 1951. On September 23, 1955, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation
No. 201, declaring our formal adherence thereto, "to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof
may be observed and fulfilled in good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof."
- Warsaw is a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by PH government and has force and effect of law
- It applies because the air-travel, where alleged tortious conduct occurred, was between UK and Italy, both signatories
to Warsaw Convention
- Art 1 of Warsaw convention:
o 1. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for
reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking.
o 2. For the purposes of this Convention the expression "international carriage" means any carriage in which,
according to the contract made by the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or
not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two High
Contracting Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party, if there is an agreed stopping
place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of another Power, even
though that Power is not a party to this Convention. A carriage without such an agreed stopping place between
territories subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of the same High Contracting Party is
not deemed to be international for the purposes of this Convention. (Emphasis supplied)
- Thus, when the place of departure and the place of destination in a contract of carriage are situated within the territories
of two High Contracting Parties, said carriage is deemed an "international carriage". The High Contracting Parties
referred to herein were the signatories to the Warsaw Convention and those which subsequently adhered to it.
- IN THIS CASE:
o Petitioners place of departure was London
o Her place of destination was Rome
o Both UK and Italy signed and ratified Warsaw
o SOOOO, the transport of the petitioner is deemed to be an international carriage within contemplation of
Warsaw
- Since Warsaw applies, Art 28(1) which states jurisdiction must applie
o 1. the court where the carrier is domiciled;
o 2. the court where the carrier has its principal place of business;
o 3. the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made; or
o 4. the court of the place of destination.
- SO!
o Respondent is domiciled in London, and principal place of business (so under #1 and #2, can bring case before
courts of London)
o The ticket was issued in Rome according to passenger ticket and baggage check (so under #3, can bring it
before Rome)
o Then destination is Rome (#4, can bring case in Rome)
 - Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines APPLIES!
o Augusto Santos III, a resident of the Philippines, purchased a ticket from Northwest Orient Airlines in San
Francisco, for transport between San Francisco and Manila via Tokyo and back to San Francisco. He was wait-
listed in the Tokyo to Manila segment of his ticket, despite his prior reservation. Contending that Northwest
Orient Airlines acted in bad faith and discriminated against him when it canceled his confirmed reservation
and gave his seat to someone who had no better right to it, Augusto Santos III sued the carrier for damages
before the RTC. Northwest Orient Airlines moved to dismiss the complaint on ground of lack of jurisdiction
citing Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. The trial court granted the motion which ruling was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. When the case was brought before us, we denied the petition holding that under
Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, Augusto Santos III must prosecute his claim in the United States, that
place being the (1) domicile of the Northwest Orient Airlines; (2) principal office of the carrier; (3) place
where contract had been made (San Francisco); and (4) place of destination (San Francisco)
- Art 28(1) of Warsaw is jurisdictional in character, not venue
o Art 32 says places where action for damages must be brought
o Consistent with objective of the Convention, which is to regulate in a uniform manner the conditions of
international transportation by air
o Warsaw doesnt contain any provision prescribing rules of jurisdiction other than 28(1) so it must only refer to
that rule
- Tortious conduct alleged by petitioner ins within purview of Warsaw
- Petitioner:
o Santos III doesnt apply because COA was based on breach of contract while hers is from tortious conduct
o "the allegation of willful misconduct resulting in a tort is insufficient to exclude the case from the
comprehension of the Warsaw Convention,"
- SC:
o That quoted sentence is OBITER
- Carey v. United Airlines
o passenger filed an action against the airline arising from an incident involving the former and the airlines
flight attendant during an international flight resulting to a heated exchange which included insults and
profanity. The United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) held that the "passenger's action against the airline
carrier arising from alleged confrontational incident between passenger and flight attendant on international
flight was governed exclusively by the Warsaw Convention, even though the incident allegedly involved
intentional misconduct by the flight attendant."
- Bloom v. Alaska
o the passenger brought nine causes of action against the airline in the state court, arising from a confrontation
with the flight attendant during an international flight to Mexico. The United States Court of Appeals (9th
Circuit) held that the "Warsaw Convention governs actions arising from international air travel and provides
the exclusive remedy for conduct which falls within its provisions." It further held that the said Convention
"created no exception for an injury suffered as a result of intentional conduct" 43 which in that case involved a
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- It is thus settled that allegations of tortious conduct committed against an airline passenger during the course of the
international carriage do not bring the case outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 14, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 132,
dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, is AFFIRMED.