CONFLICT OF LAWS | AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III vs. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992
AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III vs. NORTHWEST
ORIENT AIRLINES
G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
It is the passenger’s “ultimate destination,” not “an
agreed stopping place” that determines the country where suit against
international carrier is to be filed.
Right to court access applies only where court has
jurisdiction.
FACTS
This case involves the proper interpretation of Article
28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, reading as follows:
Art. 28. (1) An action for damage must be
brought at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or
of his principal place of business, or where he has a place of business through
which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place of
destination.
The petitioner is a minor and a resident of the
Philippines. Private respondent Nortwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign
corporation with principal office in Minnesota, U.S.A., and licensed to do
business and maintain a branch office in the Philippines.
On October 21, 1986, the petitioner purchased from NOA a
round-trip ticket in San Francisco, U.S.A., 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.
On March 12, 1987, the petitioner sued NOA for damages in
the Regional Trial Court of Makati. On April 13, 1987, NOA moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
On 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:
- the
court of the domicile of the carrier;
- the
court of its principal place of business;
- the
court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been
made;
- 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.
ISSUE
Do Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over the case?
RULING
The Court ruled that the constitutional guaranty of access
to courts refers only to courts with appropriate jurisdiction as defined by
law. It does not mean that a person can go to any court for redress of his
grievances regardless of the nature or value of his claim. But the more
important consideration is that the treaty has not been rejected by the
Philippine government. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus does not operate
automatically to render the treaty inoperative. There is a necessity for a
formal act of rejection, usually made by the head of State, with a statement of
the reasons why compliance with the treaty is no longer required.
Here, the Court ruled that if the petitioner is barred from
filing his complaint before our courts, it is because they are not vested with
the appropriate jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention, which is part of the
law of our land.
The Court ruled that it is the passenger’s “ultimate
destination,” not “an agreed stopping place” that determines the country where suit
against international carrier is to be filed.
Here, the Court ruled that 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.
