China Airlines VS Chiok

GR 152122             30 July 2003

FACTS:

Daniel Chiok purchased a ticket from China Airlines Ltd. Covering Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong-Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Philippine Airlines. The trips covered by the ticket were pre-scheduled and confirmed.

In Taipei, Chiok went to CAL office to confirm his Hong Kong-Manila flight. CAL attached a yellow sticker, indicating that flight was OK.

In Hong Kong, Chiok went to PAL office to confirm his Manila flight. PAL confirmed and attached its own sticker.

During the scheduled flight bound to Manila, it was cancelled due to a typhoon. All confirmed ticket holders were booked automatically for it’s next flight (next day)

However on the following day, a PAL employee informed Chiok that his name did not appear in PAL’s computer list of passengers and therefore could not be permitted to board PAL flight no. PR 307.

Chiok filed a complaint for damages.

The Regional Trial Court held that CAL and PAL jointly and severely liable to correspondent, affirmed by Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

WON China Airline is liable as a principal carrier?

HELD:

In citing several cases:

As the principal in the contract of carriage, the petitioner in British Airways v. Court of Appeals was held liable, even when the breach of contract had occurred, not on its own flight, but on that of another airline. The Decision followed our ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals, in which we had held that the obligation of the ticket-issuing airline remained and did not cease, regardless of the fact that another airline had undertaken to carry the passengers to one of their destinations.

In the instant case, following the jurisprudence cited above, PAL acted as the carrying agent of CAL. In the same way that we ruled against British Airways and Lufthansa in the aforementioned cases, we also rule that CAL cannot evade liability to respondent, even though it may have been only a ticket issuer for the Hong Kong-Manila sector.