View full case

LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. CA

FACTS:

Tirso V. Antiporda, Sr., a consultant for various international institutions, was contracted by Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co. (SGV) to work on a project in Malawi. Lufthansa issued a confirmed ticket for Antiporda's travel to Malawi, with the itinerary comprising of five legs on different carriers. However, Antiporda encountered problems in Bombay when Air Kenya, one of the carriers, gave his seat to another passenger. As a result, Antiporda arrived late in Blantyre. He demanded damages from Lufthansa, but when no action was taken, he filed a complaint against the airline. The lower court held that Lufthansa breached the contract to transport Antiporda from Manila to Blantyre on the five-leg trip.

In another case, petitioner Ricardo Antiporda filed a complaint against Air Kenya for damages arising from their refusal to transport him in order to accommodate another passenger. The Court of Appeals dismissed Antiporda's complaint, ruling that Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention, which deals with liability in cases of accidents or delays, does not apply to refusals to transport passengers. The Court of Appeals cited a Supreme Court ruling, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Court of Appeals, as precedent for this interpretation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Lufthansa's liability is limited to the extent that it had transported the passenger from Manila to Singapore and from Singapore to Bombay.

  2. Whether the passenger entered into a series of independent contracts with the carriers that transported him for the remaining leg of his trip or whether there was a continuous contract of carriage from Manila to Blantyre Malawi.

  3. Whether Lufthansa is the principal carrier in the contract

  4. Whether Section 2, Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention is applicable

  5. Whether Lufthansa is liable for damages

  6. Whether Lufthansa acted in bad faith in performing the contract of carriage with Antiporda.

  7. Whether Antiporda is entitled to exemplary damages.

RULING:

  1. The liability of Lufthansa is not limited to the extent of its transportation of the passenger. The contract of carriage was considered as one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Blantyre Malawi, as indicated in the ticket. Lufthansa cannot claim that its liability ceased at Bombay Airport and shifted to the other carriers.

  2. There was a continuous contract of carriage from Manila to Blantyre Malawi. The passenger was issued a confirmed Lufthansa ticket throughout the five-leg trip, and the "Conditions of Contract" stipulated in the ticket regarded the carriage by several successive carriers as a single operation.

  3. Lufthansa is the principal carrier in the contract of carriage with Antiporda. The issuance of a confirmed Lufthansa ticket covering the entire five-leg trip proves that Lufthansa guaranteed the performance of the successive carriers and assured Antiporda a space on each segment of the trip.

  4. Section 2, Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention is not applicable because it pertains to delay, not the refusal to transport passengers with confirmed reservations, which is considered "bumping-off." The court is not inclined to interpret the term "delay" to include "bumping-off" as it is not supported by jurisprudence.

  5. Lufthansa is held liable for damages. The lower court's award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, is affirmed. Lufthansa's reasons for "bumping-off" Antiporda were conflicting and it was found to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

  6. Lufthansa acted in bad faith in performing the contract of carriage with Antiporda. Lufthansa representatives tried to evade liability by claiming that the contract of carriage ceased at Bombay airport, despite the fact that Antiporda held a Lufthansa ticket for the entire trip. They also suppressed the information that Antiporda's seat was given to another passenger, presenting a different reason for his name not appearing in the manifest.

  7. Antiporda is entitled to exemplary damages. Lufthansa, through its representatives in Bombay, acted in a reckless and malevolent manner in dealing with Antiporda. The trial court found that Antiporda was bumped off from his connecting flight, stranded in the airport for 32 hours, and subjected to discourteous and arbitrary conduct. The Court of Appeals affirmed these findings, stating that there are no cogent reasons to justify a contrary finding.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In cases where transportation is performed by various successive carriers, the passenger can take action only against the carrier which performed the transportation during which the accident or delay occurred, unless the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey. (Section 2, Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention)

  • The liability of a carrier is not limited to the extent of its transportation if there is a continuous contract of carriage from the point of origin to the final destination. The nature of the contract of carriage is determined by the stipulations expressly specified in the ticket.

  • The issuer of a confirmed ticket covering multiple carriers is considered the principal carrier in the contract of carriage.

  • Section 2, Article 30 of the Warsaw Convention applies to delay, not "bumping-off" or the refusal to transport passengers with confirmed reservations.

  • The ordinary meaning of "delay" does not include "bumping-off," which completely forecloses passengers' right to be transported.

  • Willful injury to property or breaches of contract with fraudulent or bad faith acts may warrant the award of moral damages.

  • The breach of a contract, aggravated by discourteous and arbitrary conduct, may entitle a party to exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. (Article 2232 of the Civil Code)