WEEK 10 #13 Mapa v CA  TWA filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint raising, as special

G.R. No. 122308 | July 8, 1997 and affirmative defense, lack of jurisdiction of Philippine courts over
By: ARQUILLO the action for damages in that pursuant to
o Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention (WC), the action
Topic: Damages, Warsaw
could only be brought either in Bangkok where the contract
Petitioner: PURITA S. MAPA, CARMINA S. MAPA and CORNELIO P. was entered into,
MAPA o or in Boston which was the place of destination,
Respondent: TRANS-WORLD AIRLINES INC o or in Kansas City which is the carrier's domicile and principal
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., J place of business.
FACTS: ISSUE: Whether the contracts of transportation between Petitioners, on
 Cornelio P. Mapa and Purita S. Mapa are respectable members of the the one hand, and TWA, on the other, were contracts of "international
society. Mapa entered into contract of air transportation with TWA transportation" under the WC
as evidenced by TWA ticket purchased in Bangkok, Thailand. RULING:
o tickets are for LA-New York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago  TWA itself, the trial court, and CA impliedly admit that if the sole
 Domicile of carrier TWA is Kansas City, Missouri, USA. basis were the 2 TWA tickets for LA-New York-Boston-St. Louis-
o Its principal place of business is Kansas City, Missouri, USA. Chicago, the contracts cannot be brought within the term
o TWA's place of business through which the contracts were "international transportation," as defined in Article I (2) of the WC
made is Bangkok, Thailand. o As provided therein, a contract is one of international
o The place of destination is Chicago, USA. transportation only if according to the contract made by the
 Purita and Carmina S. Mapa departed for Boston, taking a connecting parties, the place of departure and the place of destination,
flight on TWA's carrier checking in 7 pieces of luggage at the TWA whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a
counter in the JFK Airport. The 7 baggages were received by a porter transshipment, are situated either within the territories of
who issued seven TWA baggage receipts. two High Contracting Parties, or
 Arriving in Boston, Purita and Carmina proceeded to the carousel to o within the territory of a single High Contracting Party, if
claim their baggages and found only 3 out of the 7 they checked in there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to
 Plaintiffs immediately reported the loss of their four baggages to the the sovereignty, mandate or authority of another power,
TWA Baggage Office at Logan Airport. TWA's representative even though that power is not a party to this convention.
confidently assured them that their baggages would be located  There are then two categories of international transportation, viz.,
within 24 hours and not more than 48 hours. o (1) that where the place of departure and the place of
 Plaintiffs' counsel wrote TWA demanding indemnification for the destination are situated within the territories of two High
grave damage and injury suffered by the plaintiffs. Contracting Parties regardless of whether or not there be a
 TWA offered to amicably settle the case. Plaintiffs accepted the check break in the transportation or a transshipment; and
for $2,560.00, as partial payment for the actual cost of their lost o (2) place of departure and the place of destination are within
baggages and their contents. the territory of a single High Contracting Party if there is an
 Despite demands by plaintiffs, TWA failed and refused without just agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
cause to indemnify and redress plaintiffs for the grave injury and sovereignty, mandate, or authority of another power, even
damages they have suffered. though the power is not a party to the Convention.
 Petitioners filed with the trial court a complaint for damages  The contracts of transportation are evidenced by the two TWA
tickets, No. 015:9475:153:304 and No. 015:9475:153:305, both
purchased and issued in Bangkok, Thailand.
 Thus, the place of departure and the place of destination are all in points of departures not served with aircrafts of one or the
the territory of the US, or of a single High Contracting Party. The other.
contracts, therefore, cannot come within the purview of the first o There could have been no difficulty for such agreement, since
category of international transportation. TWA admitted without qualification in paragraph 1 of its
 Neither can it be under the second category since there was NO Answer to the second Amended Complaint the allegation in
agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, paragraph 1.1 of the latter that TWA "is a foreign corporation
mandate, or authority of another power. licensed to do business in the Philippines with office address
 The only way to bring the contracts between Purita and Carmina at Ground Floor, Saville Building, Sen. Gil. J. Puyat Avenue,
Mapa, on the one hand, and TWA, on the other, within the first corner Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila."
category of "international transportation" is to link them with, or to  TWA relies on Article I(3) of the Convention: 3A carriage to be
make them an integral part of, the Manila-LA travel of Purita and performed by several successive air carriers is deemed, for the
Carmina through PAL aircraft. The "linkages” are: purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage, if it has
o (1) the handwritten notations, viz., INT'L TKT # 079- been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had
4402956821-2 and INT'L TKT # 079-4402956819, on the been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of
two TWA tickets; and contracts, and it shall not lose its international character merely
o (2) the entries made by petitioners in column YOUR because one contract or a series of contracts is to be performed
COMPLETE ITINERARY in TWA's Passenger Property entirely within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty,
Questionnaire, wherein they mentioned their travel from mandate, or authority of the same High Contracting Party.
Manila to LA in flight PR 102.  It also points to Article 15 of the IATA Recommend Practice 1724:
 The alleged "international tickets" mentioned in the notations in Carriage to be performed by a several successive carriers under one
conjunction with which the two TWA tickets were issued were not ticket, or under a ticket and any conjunction ticket issued in
presented. Thus, there is no factual basis of the finding that the TWA connection therewith, is regarded as a single operation."
tickets were issued in conjunction with the international tickets,  The flaw of respondent's position is the presumption that the parties
which are even, at least as of now, non-existent. have "regarded" as an "undivided carriage" or as a "single operation"
 As regards petitioner's entry in YOUR COMPLETE ITINERARY the carriage from Manila to LA through PAL then to New York-
column of the Passenger Property Questionnaire wherein they Boston-St. Louis-Chicago through TWA.
included the Manila-LA travel, this was made on 4 September 1990 by  The dismissal then of the second Amended Complaint by the trial
petitioners, and only in connection with their claim for their lost court, affirmed by CA were not based on indubitable grounds.
baggage. The loss occurred much earlier on 27 August 1990. The  TWA should have offered evidence for its affirmative defenses at the
entry is not a part of their contracts of transportation evidenced by preliminary hearing therefor. Section 5 of Rule 16 ROC:
the TWA tickets which covered transpo within US only. o Sec. 5. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — Any of the
 The first category of international transportation under the WC is grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, except
based on "the contract made by the parties." improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense,
o TWA does not claim that the Manila-LA contracts of and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion
transportation which brought Purita and Carmina to LA were to dismiss had been filed.
also its contracts.  Without any further evidence, the trial court should have denied the
o It does not deny the assertion of the petitioners that those affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction because it did not appear
contracts were independent of the TWA tickets issued in to be indubitable. Section 3 of Rule 16:
Bangkok, Thailand. o Sec. 3. Hearing and order. — After hearing the court may
o No evidence was offered that TWA and PAL had an deny or grant the motion or allow amendment of pleading, or
agreement concerning transportation of passengers from may defer the hearing and determination of the motion until
the trial if the ground alleged therein does not appear to be
indubitable.