View full case

UNITED AIRLINES v. WILLIE J. UY

FACTS:

Respondent Willie Uy filed a complaint against United Airlines for damages resulting from the airline's ill treatment, humiliation, and loss of his luggage during a flight. United Airlines filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the cause of action had already prescribed based on Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention which provides for a two-year period to file an action for damages. Respondent argued that the prescription period had not yet expired because he had made several demands upon the airline, which interrupted the running of the two-year period. Initially, the trial court dismissed the action, ruling that the filing of a complaint is the only means of interrupting the prescriptive period under Art. 29. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Subsequently, respondent filed a notice of appeal. United Airlines moved to dismiss the case, arguing that respondent's notice of appeal was filed two days late. The appellate court ruled in favor of respondent, stating that the delay in filing the notice of appeal did not prevent it from reviewing the dismissal order. The appellate court also held that the Warsaw Convention did not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other laws, thus allowing respondent to still hold United Airlines liable for breach of other provisions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention applies to respondent's cause of action for damages arising from the misconduct of the airline employees and violation of respondent's rights as a passenger.

  2. Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal should be excused.

  3. Whether the respondent's failure to file his complaint within the two-year limitation of the Warsaw Convention bars his action.

  4. Whether the respondent's second cause of action is time-barred under Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention.

RULING:

  1. The two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention does not apply to respondent's cause of action for damages arising from the misconduct of the airline employees and violation of respondent's rights as a passenger. The Civil Code and other pertinent laws, which prescribe a different period or procedure for instituting an action, can still be invoked to hold petitioner liable. Furthermore, Philippine laws provide for the interruption of prescription of actions, such as through a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, which was present in this case. Hence, respondent's cause of action had not yet prescribed.

  2. The delay in filing the notice of appeal should be excused. While the notice of appeal was filed two days later than the prescribed period, there is no intent to delay the administration of justice on the part of appellant's counsel. Moreover, the appeal raises a serious question of law and the unique and peculiar facts of the case warrant giving due course to the appeal, despite the technicality of the delay.

  3. The respondent's failure to file his complaint within the two-year limitation of the Warsaw Convention does not bar his action since the petitioner airline may still be held liable for breach of other provisions of the Civil Code which prescribe a different period or procedure for instituting the action, specifically Art. 1146 which prescribes four years for filing an action based on torts.

  4. The respondent's second cause of action is not time-barred under Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention because the delaying tactics employed by the petitioner airline itself prevented the respondent from immediately filing an action. Despite the express mandate of Art. 29 that an action for damages should be filed within two years from the arrival at the place of destination, this rule shall not be applied in the instant case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Warsaw Convention does not regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of contract by the carrier or misconduct of its officers and employees.

  • The Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.

  • The two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention does not apply to causes of action for damages arising from the misconduct of airline employees and violation of a passenger's rights.

  • Philippine laws provide for the interruption of prescription of actions through a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor.

  • Delay in filing a notice of appeal may be excused when there is no intent to delay the administration of justice, no substantial rights are affected, or when there is a mistake in the computation of the period of appeal not attributable to negligence or bad faith.

  • The limitation period of the Warsaw Convention may not bar an action if there are other provisions under the Civil Code that prescribe a different period or procedure for instituting the action.

  • The application of the limitation period under the Warsaw Convention may be excused if the delaying tactics employed by the airline prevented the immediate filing of the action.