G.R. No. 208892 - Spouses Bernardo vs. Union Bank of the Philippines

British Airways (BA) filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) award of damages and attorney's fees in favor of GOP Mahtani.
The RTC also dismissed BA’s third-party complaint against Philippine Airlines (PAL). BA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled against BA, prompting BA’s further appeal to the Supreme Court.

On April 16, 1989, respondent GOP Mahtani intended to visit relatives in Bombay, India. He employed Mr. Gumar to arrange his travel.
Mr. Gumar bought a ticket from BA with the itinerary:

Since BA had no direct Manila-Bombay flights, Mahtani flew from Manila to Hongkong on PAL and was to connect with BA from Hongkong to Bombay.
Mahtani checked in two pieces of luggage at the PAL counter in Manila, believing the bags would be transferred to the BA flight in Hongkong.

Upon arrival in Bombay, Mahtani’s luggage was missing, BA representatives suggested the luggage might have been sent to London.
After waiting one week, BA advised Mahtani to file a claim using a Property Irregularity Report.
On June 11, 1990, Mahtani filed a complaint for damages and attorney's fees against BA and Mr. Gumar before the RTC.
BA answered on September 4, 1990, raising special defenses denying Mahtani’s cause of action and filed a counterclaim.
On November 9, 1990, BA filed a third-party complaint against PAL, alleging PAL’s late arrival in Hongkong caused the failure to transfer the luggage to BA’s flight.
PAL answered on February 25, 1991, disclaiming liability and asserting sufficient time to transfer luggage to BA, claiming transfer to Hongkong authorities equated to transfer to BA.

The RTC dismissed BA’s third-party complaint against PAL for lack of cause of action.
BA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC ruling in full on September 7, 1995.
BA then sought relief before the Supreme Court contesting both the damage awards and dismissal of the third-party complaint against PAL.

Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in awarding separate compensatory damages for the luggage and its contents, given the limitation on BA’s liability as per BA’s ticket and the Warsaw Convention.

Whether BA’s failure to timely object to the presentation of damages evidence resulted in waiver of the defense of limited liability.

Whether BA’s third-party complaint against PAL should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action, considering that PAL acted as a subcontractor or agent in the carriage from Manila to Hongkong.