Alitalia v. IAC
Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in
My Collection of Case Digests
About Me Tuesday, July 27, 2010 Search This
princesslawyer Blog
View my complete Alitalia v. IAC Search
profile
Facts:
Labels Dr. Felipa Pablo, an associate professor in the University of the Philippines
and a research grantee of the Philippine Atomic Energy Agency, was invited
Civil Law to take part at a meeting of the Department of Research and Isotopes in Italy
Commercial Law
in view of her specialized knowledge in “foreign substances in food and the
Credit Transactions
agriculture environment”. She would be the second speaker on the first day
Persons and Family
of the meeting. Dr. Pablo booked passage on petitioner Alitalia. She arrived
Relations Sales
Torts
in Milan on the day before the meeting, but was told that her luggage was
and Damages
delayed and was in a succeeding flight from Rome to Milan. The luggage
Transportation Law
included her materials for the presentation. The succeeding flights did not
carry her luggage. Desperate, she went to Rome to try to locate the luggage
Blog Archive herself, but to no avail. She returned to Manila without attending the
meeting. She demanded reparation for the damages. She rejected Alitalia’s
▼ 2010 (86)
offer of free airline tickets and commenced an action for damages. As it
► August (13)
turned out, the luggage was actually forwarded to Ispra, but only a day after
▼ July (34) the scheduled appearance. It was returned to her after 11 months. The trial
Mecenas v. CA court ruled in favor of Dr. Pablo, and this was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Prudenciado v.
Alliance Issues:
Transport
System
(1) Whether the Warsaw Convention should be applied to limit Alitalia’s
Sarkies Tours liability
Phils. V. IAC
(2) Whether Dr. Pablo is entitled to nominal damages
Lopez v. Pan
American
World Held:
Airways
(1) Under the Warsaw Convention, an air carrier is made liable for damages
Alitalia v. IAC
for:
Tan v.
Northwest a. The death, wounding or other bodily injury of a passenger if the
Airlines accident causing it took place on board the aircraft or I the course of
Cervantes v. CA its operations of embarking or disembarking;
Singson v. CA b. The destruction or loss of, or damage to, any registered luggage or
Fores v. goods, if the occurrence causing it took place during the carriage by
Miranda air; and
Cachero v. c. Delay in the transportation by air of passengers, luggage or goods.
Manila
Yellow Taxi
The convention however denies to the carrier availment of the provisions
Club
which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful
Korean Airlines misconduct, or by such default on his part as is considered to be equivalent
v. CA
to wilful misconduct. The Convention does not thus operate as an exclusive
Gatchalian v. enumeration of the instances of an airline's liability, or as an absolute limit
Delim of the extent of that liability. It should be deemed a limit of liability only in
Villa Rey those cases where the cause of the death or injury to person, or destruction,
Transit v. CA loss or damage to property or delay in its transport is not attributable to or
Cariaga v. LTB attended by any wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or otherwise
Co. improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the
carrier is responsible, and there is otherwise no special or extraordinary
So Ping Bun v.
CA form of resulting injury.
PBC v. CA In the case at bar, no bad faith or otherwise improper conduct may be
Taylor v. ascribed to the employees of petitioner airline; and Dr. Pablo's luggage was
Manila eventually returned to her, belatedly, it is true, but without appreciable
Electric
damage. The fact is, nevertheless, that some species of injury was caused to
Railroad and
Light Co. 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.
Urbano v. IAC
Certainly, the compensation for the injury suffered by Dr. Pablo cannot
Vda. da under the circumstances be restricted to that prescribed by the Warsaw
Bataclan v. Convention for delay in the transport of baggage.
Medina
Del Prado v. (2) She is not, of course, entitled to be compensated for loss or damage to her
Meralco luggage. 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
Picart v. Smith
or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated and recognized, and not for
PCIB v. CA the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff that for any loss suffered and this
Calalas v. CA Court agrees that the respondent Court of Appeals correctly set the amount
thereof at PhP 40,000.00.
Rakes v. The
Atlantic Gulf
The Court also agrees that respondent Court of Appeals correctly awarded
and Pacific
Company attorney’s fees to Dr. Pablo and the amount of PhP 5,000.00 set by it is
reasonable in the premises. The law authorizes recovery of attorney’s fees
BLTB Co. v. IAC
inter alia where, as here, the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the
BLTB Co. v. IAC plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
Phoenix interest or where the court deems it just and equitable.
Construction
v. IAC
Posted by princesslawyer at 9:07 PM
People v. Delos Reactions: funny (0) interesting (0) cool (0)
Santos
Ramos v. CA
Jarco Labels: Civil Law, Torts and Damages
Marketing
Co. v. CA
Gan v. CA No comments:
US v. Barias
NPC v. CA
Post a Comment
City of Manila
v. Meralco
Enter your comment...
► June (39)
Comment as: Google Account
Publish Preview
Newer Post Home Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Comments and Suggestions
[Get a Cbox] refresh
name e-mail / url
message Go
help · smilies · cbox
Followers
Mga sumusubaybay (3)
Sundin
