Title
Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion
Case
G.R. No. 161730
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2005
Passengers denied shore pass in Japan sued JAL for damages; SC ruled JAL not liable, as immigration denial was a sovereign act beyond airline's control.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161730)

Legal Proceedings

On December 12, 1992, the Asuncions filed a complaint against JAL for damages, alleging a lack of proper disclosure regarding travel requirements and claiming they were forcibly detained at Narita Airport. The trial court, on June 10, 1997, ruled in favor of the Asuncions, awarding them damages and expenses incurred. JAL’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on October 9, 2002. After JAL's motion for reconsideration was denied, the airline elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Breach of Contract Analysis

Central to the case is the issue of whether JAL breached its contract of carriage. Under Article 1755 of the Civil Code, JAL had a duty to transport passengers safely and provide them with necessary information about travel documents. However, the Court ruled that JAL exercised its obligations appropriately and did not breach its contract of carriage. It held that while JAL must ensure passengers have the necessary travel documents, it is not required to authenticate entries within those documents.

Immigration Authority's Sovereign Act

The Court emphasized that the power to admit aliens into Japan is a sovereign responsibility that JAL cannot influence. The Asuncions were aware that they needed shore passes for their overnight stay in Narita. The assertion made by the respondents that JAL assured them of guaranteed entry was refuted by testimonies indicating that JAL had communicated its limitations.

Accommodation and Treatment of Respondents

Furthermore, it was clarified that the respondents were accommodated at the Narita Airport Rest House, which was portrayed by them as a form of detention; however, evidence suggested it resembled a hotel. JAL's representative, Mrs. Higuchi, adhered to protocols and facilitated accommodations promptly, confirming that she was unable to interfere with immigration proceedings.

Damages and Costs

The Court ruled that there was no basis for granting moral, exemplary damages, or attorney's fees as JAL did not act in a fraudulent or malevolent

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.