G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990. Alitalia, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents

10/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 192
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 9

Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
*
G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990.
ALITALIA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, respondents.
Transportation; Common Carriers; The Warsaw Convention

does not operate as an absolute limit of the extent of an airline's
liability; it does not regulate or exclude liability for other breaches
of contract by the carrier, or misconduct of its employees, or for some
particular or exceptional type of damage.—The Convention does not
thus operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of an
airline's liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that
liability. Such a proposition is not borne out by the language of the
Convention, as this Court has now, and at an earlier time, pointed
out. Moreover, slight reflection readily leads to the conclusion that it
should be deemed a limit of liability only in those cases where the
cause of the death or injury to person, or destruction, loss or damage
to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or attended
by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or otherwise
improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which
the carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise no special or
extraordinary form of resulting injury. The Convention's provisions,
in short, do not "regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of
contract by the carrier" or misconduct of its officers and employees,
or for some particular or exceptional type of damage. Otherwise, "an
air carrier would be exempt from any liability for damages in the
event of its absolute refusal, in bad faith, to comply with a contract
of carriage, which is absurd." Nor may it for a moment be supposed
that if a member of the aircraft complement should inflict
_______________
* FIRST DIV ISION.
10
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001667d27486701a994a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
some physical injury on a passenger, or maliciously destroy or

damage the latter's property, the Convention might successfully be
pleaded as the sole gauge to determine the carrier's liability to the
passenger. Neither may the Convention be invoked to justify the
disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage resulting to a
passenger and preclude recovery therefor beyond the limits set by
said Convention. It is in this sense that the Convention has been
applied, or ignored, depending on the peculiar facts presented by
each case.
Same; Same; Same; Damages; Nominal Damages; Private
respondent is entitled to an award of nominal damages for the
injury she suffered as a result of the carrier's failure to deliver her
luggage on time.—In the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise
improper conduct may be ascribed to the employees of petitioner
airline; and Dr. Pablo's luggage was eventually returned to her,
belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable damage. The fact is,
nevertheless, that some special species of injury was caused to Dr.
Pablo because petitioner ALITALIA misplaced her baggage and
failed to deliver it to her at the time appointed—a breach of its
contract of carriage, to be sure—with the result that she was unable
to read the paper and make the scientific presentation (consisting of
slides, autoradiograms or films, tables and tabulations) that she had
painstakingly labored over, at the prestigious international
conference, to attend which she had traveled hundreds of miles, to
her chagrin and embarrassment and the disappointment and
annoyance of the organizers. She felt, not unreasonably, that the
invitation for her to participate at the conference, extended by the
Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in Food and Agriculture
of the United Nations, was a singular honor not only to herself, but
to the University of the Philippines and the country as well, an
opportunity to make some sort of impression among her colleagues
in that field of scientific activity. The opportunity to claim this honor
or distinction was irretrievably lost to her because of Alitalia's
breach of its contract. Apart from this, there can be no doubt that
Dr. Pablo underwent profound distress and anxiety, which
gradually turned to panic and finally despair, from the time she
learned that her suitcases were missing up to the time when,
having gone to Rome, she finally realized that she would no longer
be able to take part in the conference. As she herself put it, she "was
really shocked and distraught and confused." Certainly, the
compensation for the injury suffered by Dr. Pablo cannot under the
circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the Warsaw
Convention for delay in the transport of baggage. She is not, of
course, entitled to be compensated for loss or damage to her
luggage. As already mentioned, her baggage was ultimately

delivered to her in Manila, tardily but safely.
11
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 11
She is however entitled to nominal damages—which, as the law

says, is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated and
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered—and this Court agrees that the respondent Court
of Appeals correctly set the amount thereof at P40,000.00.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A prayer "for such other and
further just and equitable relief in the premises" is broad enough to
comprehend an application as well for nominal damages.—As to
the purely technical argument that the award to her of such
nominal damages is precluded by her omission to include a specific
claim therefor in her complaint, it suffices to draw attention to her
general prayer, following her plea for moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees, "for such other and further just and
equitable relief in the premises," which certainly is broad enough to
comprehend an application as well for nominal damages. Besides,
petitioner should have realized that the explicit assertion, and proof,
that Dr. Pablo's right had been violated or invaded by it—absent
any claim for actual or compensatory damages, the prayer thereof
having been voluntarily deleted by Dr. Pablo upon the return to her
of her baggage—necessarily raised the issue of nominal damages.
Attorney's Fees; Attorney's fees may be awarded when
defendant's acts or omission has compelled plaintiff to litigate or
incur expenses to protect her interests.—This Court also agrees that
respondent Court of Appeals correctly awarded attorney's fees to Dr.
Pablo, and the amount "of P5,000.00 set by it is reasonable in the
premises. The law authorizes recovery of attorney's fees inter alia
where, as here, "the defendant's act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest," or "where the court deems it just and equitable."
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the then

Intermediate Appellate Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Santiago & Santiago for petitioner.
Alfredo L. Bentulan for private respondent.
NARVASA, J.:
Dr. Felipa Pablo—an

1
associate professor in the University of
the Philippines, and a research grantee of the Philippine
Atomic
________________
1 Teaching such natural science subjects as Botany, Biology and
12

Energy Agency—was invited to take part at a meeting of

the Department of Research and Isotopes of the Joint FAO-
IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in2 Food and Agriculture of
the United Nations in Ispra, Italy. She was invited in view
of her specialized knowledge in "foreign substances in food
and the agriculture environment." She accepted the
invitation, and was then scheduled by the organizers, to
read a paper on "The Fate of Radioactive
3
Fusion Products
Contaminating Vegetable Crops." The program announced
that she 4would be the second speaker on the first day of the
meeting. To fulfill this engagement, Dr. Pablo booked
passage on petitioner airline, ALITALIA.
She arrived in Milan on the day before the meeting in
accordance with the itinerary and time table set for her by
ALITALIA. She was however told by the ALITALIA
personnel there at Milan that her luggage was "delayed
inasmuch as the same x x (was)5
in one of the succeeding
flights from Rome to Milan." Her luggage consisted of two
(2) suitcases: one contained her clothing and other personal
items; the other, her scientific papers, slides and other
research material. But the other flights arriving from Rome
did not have her baggage on board
By then feeling desperate, she went to Rome to try to
locate her bags herself. There, she inquired about her
suitcases in the " domestic and international airports, and
filled out the forms prescribed by ALITALIA for people in
her predicament. However, her baggage could not be found.
Completely distraught and discouraged, she returned to
Manila without attending the meeting in Ispra, Italy.
Once back in Manila she demanded that ALITALIA
make reparation for the damages thus suffered by her.
ALITALIA offered her "free airline tickets to compensate
her for any alleged damages x x." She rejected the offer, and
6
6
forthwith commenced the action which has given rise to the
present
_______________
Plant Physiology.
2 Rollo, p. 36.
3 Ibid, reference being made to Exhs. "A-2-a" and "A-2-b".
4 This was on November 6, 1972.
5 Rollo, p. 88.
6 On June 7, 1973 (Rollo, p. 90).
13
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 13

appellate proceedings.
As it turned out, Prof. Pablo's
7
suitcases were in fact
located and forwarded to Ispra, Italy, but only on the day
after her scheduled8 appearance and participation at the
U.N. meeting there. Of course Dr. Pablo was no longer there
to accept delivery; she was already on her way home to
Manila. And for some reason or other, the suitcases were not
actually restored to Prof. Pablo by ALITALIA until eleven
(11) months9
later, and four (4) months after institution of
her action.
After appropriate proceedings and trial, the Court 10
of
First Instance rendered judgment in Dr. Pablo's favor:
'(1) Ordering the defendant (ALITALIA) to pay x x (her)

the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, by way of
nominal damages;
(2) Ordering the defendant to pay x x (her) the sum of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), Philippine
Currency, as and for attorney's fees; (and)
(3) Ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the suit."
ALITALIA appealed to the Intermediate Appellate 11

Court
but failed to obtain a reversal of the judgment. Indeed, the
Appellate Court not only affirmed the Trial Court's decision
but also increased the award12of nominal damages payable
by ALITALIA
13
to P40,000.00. That increase it justified as
follows:
"Considering the circumstances, as found by the Trial Court and the

negligence committed by defendant, the amount of P20,000.00
________________
7 Specifically to the Hotel Europa, as indicated by Prof. Pablo (Rollo, pp. 88-
89).
8 Rollo, p. 89. The baggage arrived on Nov. 7, 1972; but by that time, Prof.
Pablo had already left Rome for Hongkong.
9 Delivery appears to have been effected on October 17, 1973 (Rollo, p. 136).
10 Rollo, p. 43: Record on Appeal, pp. 61-62. The decision was written by
Judge Ricardo D. Galano and is dated February 2, 1975.
11 Its appeal was docketed as AC-G.R. CV No. 59501.
12 Rollo, pp. 35-39. The decision was written for the Second Civil Cases
Division by Campos, Jr., J., with whom concurred Pascual, Camilon and Jurado,
JJ.
13 Id., pp. 38-39.
14

under present inflationary conditions as awarded x x to the plaintiff

as nominal damages, is too little to make up for the plaintiff s
frustration and disappointment in not being able to appear at said
conference; and for the embarrassment and humiliation she
suffered from the academic community for failure to carry out an
official mission for which she was singled out by the faculty to
represent her institution and the country. After weighing carefully
all the considerations, the amount awarded to the plaintiff for
nominal damages and attorney's fees should be increased to the cost
of her round trip air fare or at the present rate of peso to the dollar
at P40,000,00."
ALITALIA has appealed to this Court on certiorari. Here, it

seeks to make basically the same points it tried to make
before the Trial Court and the Intermediate Appellate
Court, i.e.:
1) that the Warsaw Convention should have been

applied to limit ALITALIA'S liability; and
2) that there is no warrant in fact or in law for the
award to Dr.14 Pablo of nominal damages and
attorney's fees.
In addition, ALITALIA postulates that it was error for the

Intermediate Appellate Court to have refused to pass on all
the assigned errors and in not 15
stating the facts and the law
on which its decision is based. 16
Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is made
liable
_______________
14 Id., pp. 91-92.

15 Id., p. 91.
16 Full title: "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating
to International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw, October 12,1929"
(League of Nations—Treaty Series), coming into force on Feb. 13, 1933,
adhered to by the Republic of the Philippines on Nov. 9, 1950 with
reservation; the Philippines deposited the Instrument of Adherence with
the Polish Government on Nov. 9, 1950; and the Convention entered into
force for the Philippines on Feb. 7, 1951 (Philippine Treaties Index [1946-
1982] citing 137 League of Nations Treaties Series 11). The Warsaw
Convention was amended by (1) the Hague Protocol on September 28,
1955 (Id., and United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 261, p. 423 and Vol.
266, p. 444), entering into force for the Philippines on February 28, 1967;
(2) the Montreal Agreement in 1966, of which the Philippine Airlines and
Alitalia are signatories; (3) the Guatemala Protocol in 1971 (apparently
not adhered to by IATA members); and (4) the Montreal Protocols
(Numbered 3 and 4) (1975) (also apparently not effective among IATA
members).
15
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 15

for damages for:
1) the death, wounding or other bodily injury of a

passenger if the accident causing it took place on
board the aircraft or in the course
17
of its operations of
embarking or disembarking;
2) the destruction or loss of, or damage to, any
registered luggage or goods, if the occurrence 18
causing it took place during the carriage by air;"
and
3) delay in the transportation
19
by air of passengers,
luggage or goods.
In these cases, it is provided in the Convention that the

"action for damages, however founded, can only be20brought
subject to the conditions and limits set out" therein.
The Convention also purports21to limit the liability of the
carriers in the following manner:
1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the

carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of
250,000 francs. x x x Nevertheless, by special
contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to

a higher limit of liability.
2. a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo,
the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250
francs per kilogramme, unless the passenger or
consignor has made, at the time when the
_______________
17 ART. 17.
18 ART. 18 (par. 1), "transportation by air" being defined as "the period
during which the baggage or goods are in charge of the carrier whether in
an airport or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an
airport, in any place whatever," but not where said baggage or goods are
transported by land, sea or river outside an airport unless it be in "the
performance of a contract for transportation by air for the purpose of
loading, delivery or transshipment (pars. 2 and 3, ART. 18).
19 ART. 19.
20 ART. 24, which also states that with regard to Article 17, the
application of the rule is "without prejudice to the questions as to who are
the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective
rights."
21 ART. 22, as amended by the Hague Protocol, supra; the Montreal
Agreement of 1966 set the limitation of damages at $75,000 per
passenger; the Guatemala Protocol, 1971, boosted the limit to $100,000
per passenger, liability for baggage was increased to $1,000, and the right
to bring suit was expanded.
16

package was handed over to the carrier, a special

declaration of interest in delivery at destination and
has paid a supplementary sum if the case so
requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay
a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he
proves that that sum is greater than the actual
value to the consignor at delivery.
b) In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of
registered baggage or cargo, or of any object
contained therein, the weight to be taken into
consideration in determining the amount to which
the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total
weight of the package or packages concerned.
Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or delay of a
part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an

object contained therein, affects the value of other
packages covered by the same baggage check or the
same air way bill, the total weight of such package or
packages shall also be taken into consideration in
determining the limit of liability.
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes

charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited
to 5000 francs per passenger.
4. The limits prescribed x x shall not prevent the court
from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in
addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of
the other expenses of litigation incurred by the
plaintiff. The foregoing provision shall not apply if
the amount of the damages awarded, excluding
court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does
not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in
writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months
from the date of the occurrence causing the damage,
or before the commencement of the action, if that is
later.
The Warsaw Convention however denies to the carrier

availment "of the provisions which exclude or
limit.his.liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful
misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance
with the law of the court seized of the case, is considered to
be equivalent to wilful misconduct," or "if the damage is
(similarly) caused x x by any agent22 of the carrier acting
within the scope of his employment." The Hague Protocol
amended the Warsaw Convention by removing the
provision that if the airline took all necessary steps to23avoid
the damage, it could exculpate itself completely, and
declaring the stated
________________
22 ART. 25.
23 ART. 20 (1). "The carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his
agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it
was impossible for him or them to take such measures."
17
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 17

limits of liability not applicable "if it is proved that the

damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its
servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or
recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably
result." The same deletion was effected by the Montreal
Agreement of 1966, with the result that a passenger could 24
recover unlimited damages upon proof of wilful misconduct.
The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances of an airline's liability, or as
an absolute limit of the extent of that liability. Such a
proposition is not borne out by the language of the
Convention,25as this Court has now, and at an earlier time,
pointed out. Moreover, slight reflection readily leads to the
conclusion that it should be deemed a limit of liability only
in those cases where the cause of the death or injury to
person, or destruction, loss or damage to property or delay in
its transport is not attributable to or attended by any wilful
misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or otherwise improper
conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the
carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise no special or
extraordinary form of resulting injury. The Convention's
provisions, in short, do not "regulate or exclude
26
liability for
other breaches of contract by the carrier" or misconduct of
its officers and employees, or for some particular or
exceptional type of damage. Otherwise, "an air carrier would
be exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its
absolute refusal, in bad faith,
27
to comply with a contract of
carriage, which is absurd." Nor may it for a moment be
supposed that if a member of the aircraft complement
should inflict some physical injury on a passenger, or
maliciously destroy or damage the
________________
24 Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, 370 F 2d 508 [2nd Cir. 1966]

aff'd 390 US 455 [1968], rehearing denied 397 US 939 [1968] and Egan v.
Kallsman Instrument Corp., 21 NY 2d 160, 287 NYS 2d 14 [1967]; CERT.
DENIED 390 US 1039 [1968].
25 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, 14 SCRA 1065 (1965) which
inter alia states that the Convention "merely declares the carrier liable
for damages in the enumerated cases, if the conditions therein specified
are present."
26 Id.
27 Id.
18
latter's property, the Convention might successfully be

pleaded as the sole gauge to determine the carrier's liability
to the passenger. Neither may the Convention be invoked to
justify the disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage
resulting to a passenger and preclude recovery therefor
beyond the limits set by said Convention. It is in this sense
that the Convention has been applied, or ignored,
depending on the peculiar facts presented by each case.28
In Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. I.A.C., for
example, the Warsaw Convention was applied as regards
the limitation on the carrier's liability, there being a simple
loss of baggage without any otherwise improper conduct on
the part of the officials or employees of the airline or other
special injury sustained by the passenger.
On the other hand, the Warsaw Convention has
invariably been held inapplicable, or as not restrictive of the
carrier's liability, where there was satisfactory evidence of
malice or 29 bad faith attributable to its officers and
employees. Thus, an air carrier was sentenced to pay not
only compensatory but also moral and exemplary damages,
and attorney's fees, for instance, where its employees rudely
put a passenger 30holding a first-class ticket in the tourist or
economy section, or ousted a 31brown Asiatic from the plane
to give his seat to a white man,
_______________
28 164 SCRA 268, citing Ong Yiu v. C.A. 91 SCRA 223; SEE Burnett v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc. (DC NM), 368 F. Supp. 1152 holding that the
airline was not responsible to its passengers for mere mental anguish
sustained as a result of the hijacking, in the absence of physical injuries.
29 SEE KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Tuller, 119 App. DC 282, 292 F
2d 775, cert den 368 US 921, 7 L Ed 2d 136, 82 S Ct 243; American
Airlines, Inc. v. Ulen, 87 App DC 307, 186 F 2d 529; Goepp v. American
Overseas Airlines, Inc., 281 App Div 105, 117 NYS 2d 276, affd 305 NY
830, 114 NE 2d 37, cert den 346 US 874, 98 L Ed 382, 74 S Ct 124.
30 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, 14 SCRA 1063; Lopez v. Pan
Am, 16 SCRA 43.
31 Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155. In Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa
German Airlines, 64 SCRA 610 (1975), plaintiffs seat in the first-class
section was given to a Belgian, and consequently plaintiff, who held a
first-class ticket, confirmed and validated, was relegated to a tourist- or
economy-class seat.
19
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 19

or gave the 32seat of a passenger with a confirmed reservation

to another, or subjected a passenger to extremely 33rude,
even barbaric treatment, as by calling him a "monkey."
In the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise improper
conduct may be ascribed to the employees of petitioner
airline; and Dr. Pablo's luggage was eventually returned to
her, belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable damage.
The fact is, nevertheless, that some special species of injury
was caused to Dr. Pablo because petitioner ALITALIA
misplaced her baggage and failed to deliver it to her at the
time appointed—a breach of its contract of carriage, to be
sure—with the result that she was unable to read the paper
and make the scientific presentation (consisting of slides,
autoradiograms or films, tables and tabulations) that she
had painstakingly labored over, at the prestigious
international conference, to attend which she had traveled
hundreds of miles, to her chagrin and embarrassment and
the disappointment and annoyance of the organizers. She
felt, not unreasonably, that the invitation for her to
participate at the conference, extended by the Joint
FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in Food and
Agriculture of the United Nations, was a singular honor not
only to herself, but to the University of the Philippines and
the country as well, an opportunity to make some sort of
impression among her colleagues in that field of scientific
activity. The opportunity to claim this honor or distinction
was irretrievably lost to her because of Alitalia's breach of
its contract.
Apart from this, there can be no doubt that Dr. Pablo
underwent profound distress and anxiety, which gradually
turned to panic and finally despair, from the time she
learned that her suitcases were missing up to the time when,
having gone to Rome, she finally realized that she would no
longer be able to take part in the conference. As she herself
put it, she "was really shocked and distraught and
confused."
Certainly, the compensation for the injury suffered by
Dr. Pablo cannot under the circumstances be restricted to
that prescribed by the Warsaw Convention for delay in the
transport
________________
32 Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. C.A., 154 SCRA 211; see also, KLM
Royal Dutch Airlines v. C.A., 65 SCRA 237.
33 Zulueta v. Pan Am, 43 SCRA 397.
20

of baggage.
She is not, of course, entitled to be compensated for loss or
damage to her luggage. As already mentioned, her baggage
was ultimately delivered to her in Manila, tardily but safely.
She is however entitled to nominal damages—which, as the
law says, is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may
be vindicated and recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered—and this
Court agrees that the respondent Court of Appeals correctly
set the amount thereof at P40,000.00. As to the purely
technical argument that the award to her of such nominal
damages is precluded by her omission to include a specific
claim therefor in her complaint, it suffices to draw attention
to her general prayer, following her plea for moral and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees, "for such other and
further just and equitable relief in the premises," which
certainly is broad enough to comprehend an application as
well for nominal damages. Besides, petitioner should have
realized that the explicit assertion, and proof, that Dr.
Pablo's right had been violated or invaded by it—absent
any claim for actual or compensatory damages, the prayer
thereof having been voluntarily deleted by Dr. Pablo upon
the return to her of her baggage—necessarily raised the
issue of nominal damages.
This Court also agrees that respondent Court of Appeals
cor-rectly awarded attorney's fees to Dr. Pablo, and the
amount of P5,000.00 set by it is reasonable in the premises.
The law authorizes recovery of attorney's fees inter alia
where, as here, "the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with34 third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his35 interest," or "where the court
deems it just and equitable."
WHEREFORE, no error being perceived in the
challenged decision of the Court of Appeals, it appearing on
the contrary to be entirely in accord with the facts and the
law, said decision is
_______________
34 Civil Code, ART. 2208, par. (2); see Rivera v. Litum & Co., Inc., 4
SCRA 1072 (1962); Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corporation v. Central Bank,
23 SCRA 1044 (1968); Ganaban v. Bayle, 30 SCRA 365 (1969); Valenzuela
v. C.A., G.R. No. 56168, Dec. 22,1988.
35 Id., id., par (11); see Civil Aeronautics Administration v. C.A., G.R.
No. 51806, Nov. 8,1988.
21
VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 21

Villanueva vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,

concur.
Decision affirmed.
Note.—Common carrier has legal liability under the

contract of carriage. (Juntilla vs. Fontanar, 136 SCRA 624.)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990. Alitalia, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990. Alitalia, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 71929. December 4, 1990. Alitalia, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate COURT and FELIPA E. PABLO, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 192

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 9

ALITALIA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

Transportation; Common Carriers; The Warsaw Convention

* FIRST DIV ISION.

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

some physical injury on a passenger, or maliciously destroy or

luggage. As already mentioned, her baggage was ultimately

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 11

Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

She is however entitled to nominal damages—which, as the law

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the then

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Dr. Felipa Pablo—an

1 Teaching such natural science subjects as Botany, Biology and

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Energy Agency—was invited to take part at a meeting of

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 13

'(1) Ordering the defendant (ALITALIA) to pay x x (her)

ALITALIA appealed to the Intermediate Appellate 11

"Considering the circumstances, as found by the Trial Court and the

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

under present inflationary conditions as awarded x x to the plaintiff

ALITALIA has appealed to this Court on certiorari. Here, it

1) that the Warsaw Convention should have been

In addition, ALITALIA postulates that it was error for the

14 Id., pp. 91-92.

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 15

for damages for:

1) the death, wounding or other bodily injury of a

In these cases, it is provided in the Convention that the

1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the

contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

package was handed over to the carrier, a special

part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an

3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes

The Warsaw Convention however denies to the carrier

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 17

limits of liability not applicable "if it is proved that the

24 Lisi v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, 370 F 2d 508 [2nd Cir. 1966]

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

latter's property, the Convention might successfully be

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 19

or gave the 32seat of a passenger with a confirmed reservation

33 Zulueta v. Pan Am, 43 SCRA 397.

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 192, DECEMBER 4, 1990 21

hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioner.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,

Note.—Common carrier has legal liability under the

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like