124. luna vs ca.docx

7/26/2019 124. luna vs ca.docx

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 100374-75 November 27, 1992

RUFNO !. "UN#, RO$O"FO %. #"ONSO &'( PORFRO

RO$RGUE), petitioners,

vs.

*ON. COURT OF #PPE#"S, *ON. CRSTN# M. ESTR#$# +' er &&+/

&s Pres+(+' %(e, RTC-P&s+, r. 9, Me/ro M&'+&, *ON. TEREST# $.C#PU"ONG +' er &&+/ &s Pres+(+' %(e, RTC-6&e'e&, r. 172,

Me/ro M&'+&, &'( NORT*8EST #R"NES, NC., respondents.

E""OS""O, %.

This oint petition for revie! on certiorari ori"inated fro# t!o $%& separate

co#plaints arisin" fro# an airline's dela( in the deliver( of the lu""a"e of its

passen"ers at their destination !hich respondent courts dis#issed for lac) ofcause of action. The resultin" issue is !hether the application of the *arsa!

+onvention operates to eclude the application of the provisions of the Ne! +ivil

+ode and the other statutes.

-riefl(, the facts On /0 Ma( /010, at around 122 in the #ornin", petitioners

Rufino 3una, Rodolfo 4lonso and Porfirio Rodri"ue5 boarded Fli"ht 2%2 of private

respondent North!est 4irlines bound for Seoul, South 6orea, to attend the four7

da( Rotar( International +onvention fro# the %/st to the %8th of Ma( /00%. The(

chec)ed in one $/& piece of lu""a"e each. 4fter boardin", ho!ever, due to en"ine

trouble, the( !ere as)ed to dise#bar) and transfer to a 6orean 4irlines plane

scheduled to depart four $8& hours later. The( !ere assured that their ba""a"e

!ould be !ith the# in the sa#e fli"ht.

*hen petitioners arrived in Seoul, the( discovered that their personal belon"in"s

!ere no!here to be found instead, the( !ere alle"edl( flo!n to Seattle, 9.S.4. It

!as not until four $8& da(s later, and onl( after repeated representations !ith


2/7

North!est 4irlines personnel at the airport in 6orea !ere petitioners able to

retrieve their lu""a"e. -( then the +onvention, !hich the( !ere hardl( able to

attend, !as al#ost over.

Petitioners Rufino :. 3una and Rodolfo ;. 4lfonso assert that on < ;une /010, or

thirteen $/=& da(s after the( recovered their lu""a"e, the( sent a !ritten clai# to

private respondent's office alon" Roas -lvd., >r#ita, Manila. Petitioner Porfirio

Rodri?ue5, on his part, asserverates that he filed his clai# on /= ;une /010.

@o!ever, private respondent, is a letter of %/ ;une /010, diso!ned an( liabilit(

for the dela( and averred that it eerted Aits best efforts to carr( the passen"er

and ba""a"e !ith reasonable dispatch.A1

Thus, on /8 ;ul( /010, petitioners 3una and 4lonso ointl( filed a co#plaint for

breach of contract !ith da#a"es before the Re"ional Trial +ourt of Pasi", Metro

Manila, doc)eted as +ivil +ase No. B1=02, subse?uentl( raffled to -r.


3/7

period !ithin !hich to file a clai# cannot be invo)ed if da#a"e is caused b( the carrier's !illful

#isconduct, as provided b( 4rt. %B of the sa#e *arsa! +onvention.

Private respondent, on the other hand, ar"ues that the dis#issal order of

respondent courts had alread( beco#e final after petitioners failed to either #ove

for reconsideration or appeal fro# the orders !ithin the re"le#entar( period,hence, certiorariis no substitute for a lost appeal.

Private respondent also #aintains that it did not receive an( de#and letter fro#

petitioners !ithin the %/7da( re"le#entar( period, as provided in par. C of the

+onditions of +ontract appearin" in the plane tic)et. Since 4rt. %


4/7

the etent of that liabilit(. 1The +onvention #erel( declares the carrier liable for da#a"es in the

enu#erated cases, if the conditions therein specified are present. 17For sure, it does not re"ulate

the liabilit(, #uch less ee#pt, the carrier for violatin" the ri"hts of others !hich #ust si#pl( be

respected in accordance !ith their contracts of carria"e. The application of the +onvention #ust

not therefore be construed to preclude the operation of the +ivil +ode and other pertinent la!s. In

fact, in 4litalia v.I4+, 1:*e a!arded Dr. Felipa Pablo no#inal da#a"es, the provisions of the

+onvention not!ithstandin".

@ence, petitioners' alle"ed failure to file a clai# !ith the co##on carrier as

#andated b( the provisions of the *arsa! +onvention should not be a "round

for the su##ar( dis#issal of their co#plaints since private respondent #a( still

be held liable for breach of other relevant la!s !hich #a( provide a different

period or procedure for filin" a clai#. +onsiderin" that petitioners indeed filed a

clai# !hich private respondent ad#itted havin" received on %/ ;une, /010, their

de#and #a( have ver( !ell been filed !ithin the period prescribed b( those

applicable la!s. +onse?uentl(, respondent trial courts, as !ell as respondent

appellate court, !ere in error !hen the( li#ited the#selves to the provisions of

the *arsa! +onvention and disre"ardin" co#pletel( the provisions of the +ivil

+ode.

*e are unable to a"ree ho!ever !ith petitioners that 4rt. %B of the +onvention

operations to eclude the other provisions of the +onvention if da#a"e is caused

b( the co##on carrier's !illful #isconduct. 4s correctl( pointed out b( private

respondent, 4rt. %B refers onl( to the #onetar( ceilin" on da#a"es found in 4rt.

%% should da#a"e be caused b( the carrier's !illful #isconduct. @ence, onl( the

provisions of 4rt. %% li#itin" the carrier's liabilit( and i#posin" a #onetar( ceilin"in case of !illful #isconduct on its part that the carrier cannot invo)e. 19This issueho!ever has beco#e acade#ic in the li"ht of our rulin" that the trial courts erred in dis#issin"

petitioners' respective co#plaints.

*e are not prepared to subscribed to petitioners' ar"u#ent that the failure of

private respondent to deliver their lu""a"e at the desi"nated ti#e and place

a#ounted ipso facto to !illful #isconduct. For !illful #isconduct to eist, there

#ust be a sho!in" that the acts co#plained of !ere i#pelled b( an intention to

violate the la!, or !ere in persistent disre"ard of one's ri"hts. It #ust be

evidenced b( a fla"rantl( or sha#efull( !ron" or i#proper conduct.

*@>R>FOR>, the assailed decisions and resolutions of respondent +ourt of

4ppeals are R>V>RS>D and S>T 4SID>. The co#plaints for breach of contract

of carria"e !ith da#a"es in +ivil +ase No. =/087V710 and +ivil +ase No. B1=02

dis#issed b( respondent ;ud"es Teresita D. +apulon" and +ristina M. >strada,


5/7

respectivel(, are ordered R>INST4T>D and "iven due course until ter#inated.

No costs.

SO ORD>R>D.

+ru5, Padilla and GriHo74?uino, ;;., concur.

Foo/'o/es

/ 3etter of -.3. -arnhill, Mana"er $Philippines&, North!est 4irlines, Inc. Rollo, pp.

8=788.

% Presided b( then ;ud"e ;ainal D. Rasul, no! ;ustice of the +ourt of 4ppeals,

succeeded b( ;ud"e +ristina M. >strada !ho issued the assailed Order.

= Presided b( ;ud"e Teresita D. +apulon".

8 The +o#plaints of petitioners 3una and 4lonso !ere dis#issed on /1

Septe#ber /002, !hile that of petitioner Rodri"ue5, on 1 Nove#ber /010.

B Rollo, pp. %=7=C.

< Id., p. =1.

C Rollo, pp. /B7%%.

1 G.R. No. C/0%0, 8 Dece#ber /002 /0% S+R4 0, then Senior 4ssociate ;ustice

no! +hief ;ustice 4ndres R. Narvasa,ponente.

0 Id., p. /C.

/2 Petition, p. /2 Rollo, p. //.

// Ma"nus v. Ro(al -an), /0 4vi. /C, 088, /C, 081 @i"hlands Ins. v. Trinidad andToba"o, C=0 F. %d B=


6/7

/= Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. +4, G.R. No. 008=/, // 4u"ust

/00%, citin" 3e"arda v. +4, G.R. No. 088BC, -ranch /1 March /00/, /0B S+R4

8/1.

/8 4randa v. +4, G.R. No.


7/7

/0 See Note /C.

124. luna vs ca.docx

Documents