Title
Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 71929
Decision Date
Dec 4, 1990
Dr. Pablo sued Alitalia for delayed luggage, causing her to miss a UN conference. Courts ruled Warsaw Convention didn’t limit liability, awarding damages and attorney’s fees for distress and breach of contract.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21353-54)

Factual Background

Dr. Pablo accepted an invitation to speak at a U.N. scientific meeting in Ispra, Italy, and booked passage with Alitalia. Her luggage—two suitcases, one containing clothing and the other containing scientific papers, slides and research material—did not arrive in Milan as scheduled. Despite inquiries, filling of carrier forms, and personal efforts including travel to Rome, she could not locate the baggage in time to attend and present at the conference. Alitalia subsequently located and forwarded the baggage to Ispra only after her scheduled appearance, and the carrier did not restore the suitcases to Dr. Pablo until approximately eleven months later. Alitalia offered free airline tickets as compensation; Dr. Pablo rejected this and sued for damages.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance (Trial Court) ruled for Dr. Pablo, awarding P20,000 nominal damages, P5,000 attorney’s fees, and costs. Alitalia appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which affirmed and increased the award of nominal damages to P40,000 while leaving attorney’s fees at P5,000. Alitalia then sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court, raising principally: (1) that the Warsaw Convention should limit Alitalia’s liability; (2) that awards for nominal damages and attorney’s fees were unwarranted; and (3) that the Court of Appeals had failed to address assigned errors and adequately state facts and law.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Warsaw Convention and its limitations on liability govern and limit Alitalia’s liability for the consequences of the delayed baggage. 2) Whether nominal damages and attorney’s fees were properly awarded to Dr. Pablo given the facts and pleadings. 3) Whether the Court of Appeals erred procedurally in failing to pass upon assigned errors and in not stating the facts and law supporting its decision.

Governing Legal Principles from the Record

  • The Warsaw Convention makes an air carrier liable in specific enumerated situations (death or bodily injury of passengers when caused by an accident on board or in the course of operations of embarking/disembarking; destruction, loss, or damage to registered luggage or goods when occurring during carriage by air; and delay in the transportation of passengers, luggage or goods) and subjects actions for damages to the conditions and limits set out therein (Arts. 17–19, 24). The Convention prescribes monetary limits on liability (Art. 22 as amended), but it also provides that the carrier cannot invoke such limits if damage results from wilful misconduct or equivalent default by the carrier or its agents. - The Hague Protocol and the Montreal Agreement amended the Convention to deny or restrict complete exculpation for carriers and to make limits inapplicable where damage resulted from intentional or recklessly indifferent conduct. - The Convention does not purport to be an exclusive regulation of all carrier liability; it does not displace liability for other breaches of contract, bad faith, willful misconduct, or exceptional kinds of injury. Jurisprudence cited in the opinion shows varying application: where loss is a straightforward loss of baggage without misconduct, the Convention’s limits have been applied; where evidence of malice, bad faith, or other egregious conduct exists, courts have refused to confine recovery to Convention limits and have allowed moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Court’s Analysis on Applicability of the Warsaw Convention

The Court recognized the Warsaw Convention and its amendments but emphasized that its limits apply principally where the injury results from identifiable categories covered by the Convention and where there is no wilful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or other improper conduct by the carrier or its agents. In this case the Court found no evidence of bad faith or malicious conduct by Alitalia’s employees; the luggage was ultimately returned intact. Nevertheless, the loss here involved more than a mere temporal delay in baggage: the delayed luggage deprived Dr. Pablo of the irreplaceable opportunity to present her research at an international conference—an honor to her personally and to her institution—and caused profound distress, humiliation, and professional embarrassment. Because the principal injury was the loss of the opportunity to perform a professional duty and the attendant non-pecuniary harms, the Court held that restricting recovery to the Convention’s baggage-delay formulas would be inappropriate.

Court’s Rationale for Awarding Nominal Damages and Amount

The Court concluded Dr. Pablo was entitled to nominal damages to vindicate the invasion of her legal right—the right to have her contractual carriage performed so she could fulfill the professional engagement—and that the Court of Appeals’ quantum of P40,000 as nominal damages was appropriate under the circumstances. The Court addressed the technical objection that plaintiff did

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.