Case Summary (G.R. No. 171092)
Key Dates
Incident alleged: February 28, 2005.
Complaint filed (RTC Makati): April 28, 2005.
Summons served in the Philippines: May 16, 2005 (on Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc.).
Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent (special appearance): May 30, 2005.
RTC Order granting Motion to Dismiss: October 14, 2005.
RTC denial of reconsideration: January 4, 2006.
Supreme Court decision affirming dismissal: March 15, 2010.
Applicable Law and Treaties
- Warsaw Convention: applies to international carriage of persons where the place of departure and place of destination are situated within the territories of High Contracting Parties; Article 1 defines scope (international carriage) and Article 28(1) prescribes exclusive jurisdictions where actions for damages "must" be brought (court of carrier’s domicile; carrier’s principal place of business; place where contract made through carrier’s establishment; or court of place of destination).
- Civil Code provisions invoked by petitioner: Article 2176 (quasi-delict), Article 19 (good faith and justice in exercise of rights), Article 21 (compensation for willful loss contrary to morals/good customs/public policy).
- Procedural rule on special appearance and voluntary submission: special appearance to contest jurisdiction does not constitute voluntary submission to the forum (La Naval Drug Corp.; Garcia v. Sandiganbayan), as applied by the Supreme Court in the decision under review.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner alleged that during British Airways flight 548 (London–Rome) on February 28, 2005, a flight attendant (Halliday) refused to assist with overhead luggage and made a sarcastic remark; later, another flight attendant (Kerrigan) singled her out in business class, lectured her in a manner that embarrassed her, and threatened her by saying “We don’t like your attitude.” Upon arrival in Rome petitioner demanded an apology from the carrier’s ground manager, who declined. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Makati praying for substantial moral, nominal and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
Procedural History in the Lower Court
Summons was served in Manila on Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc. Respondent entered a special appearance and filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over its person because the Warsaw Convention restricts actions for damages to specified fora (carrier’s domicile, principal place of business, place where contract made, or place of destination). The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss on October 14, 2005, finding that the Warsaw Convention applied (departure London; destination Rome; ticket issued in Rome; respondent domiciled and principally based in London) and therefore Philippine courts lacked jurisdiction. The trial court treated the issue of improper service as moot given lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Petition for reconsideration was denied; petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over tortious conduct committed against a Filipino citizen and resident by airline personnel of a foreign carrier during carriage beyond the territorial limits of any foreign country and thus outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.
- Whether respondent’s filing of a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and over its person constituted submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court—especially if respondent’s counsel acted as resident agent.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner argued her cause of action arises from tort (quasi-delict and violations of Civil Code Articles 19 and 21) and not from the contract of carriage, thus she retained the option to pursue remedy in Philippine courts under domestic law. She also contended that respondent’s pleadings exhibited submission to jurisdiction (estoppel) because of statements by respondent’s counsel regarding appearances and resident agency.
Respondent’s Contentions
Respondent argued that the Warsaw Convention governs the dispute because the carriage was international (London–Rome), that Article 28(1) of the Convention prescribes exclusive fora where actions for damages must be brought (including London and Rome), and that Philippine courts are therefore divested of jurisdiction. Respondent also denied voluntary submission to the trial court, maintaining its special appearance preserved jurisdictional defenses.
Supreme Court Analysis — Applicability of the Warsaw Convention
The Court affirmed that the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in the Philippines and applies to the carriage in issue because departure (United Kingdom) and destination (Italy) are within the territories of High Contracting Parties. Under Article 1 the carriage is international, and under Article 28(1) the plaintiff’s options for bringing actions for damages are limited to the specified fora. The facts showed that British Airways is domiciled and has principal place of business in London (permitting suit there), the ticket was issued in Rome (permitting suit in Rome under the “establishment by which the contract has been made” rule), and Rome is the place of destination (permitting suit there). The Court thus held the Warsaw Convention governed jurisdiction as to the subject matter.
Supreme Court Analysis — Tortious Claims Within the Convention’s Scope
The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that tort claims remove the case from the Convention’s ambit. Relying on precedent (Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines) and foreign authority (Carey v. United Airlines; Bloom v. Alaska Airlines), the Court held that allegations of willful misconduct or intentional torts occurring during international carriage do not exclude the case from the Warsaw Convention. The Court characterized Article 28(1) as jurisdictional rather than merely venue-based; its mandatory language and the Convention’s objectives require uniform regulation of international air carriage. Consequently, tort claims arising in the course of international carriage are governed by the Convention’s jurisdictional scheme.
Supreme Court Analysis — Effect of Respondent’s Special Appearanc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171092)
Preliminary Statement and Judicial Attribution
- Decision penned by Justice Del Castillo of the Second Division, reported at 629 Phil. 365, G.R. No. 171092, dated March 15, 2010.
- Opening maxim quoted in the decision: "Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta cum necessitate juris dicendi. Jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice." [50 C.J.S. 1089 noted in source]
- Petition for review on certiorari raises pure questions of law concerning jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention and whether respondent's special appearance constituted submission to jurisdiction of the trial court.
Factual Antecedents
- On February 28, 2005, petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier boarded British Airways Flight 548 from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy.
- Alleged incidents on board:
- Petitioner requested assistance from flight attendant Julian Halliday to place her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin; Halliday allegedly refused and allegedly remarked: "If I were to help all 300 passengers in this flight, I would have a broken back!"
- When the plane was about to land in Rome, another flight attendant, Nickolas Kerrigan, allegedly singled her out in business class to lecture on plane safety, made her appear ignorant and uneducated, and, after petitioner stated she knew safety regulations, Kerrigan allegedly thrust his face a few centimeters from hers and menacingly said: "We don't like your attitude."
- Upon arrival in Rome, petitioner complained to respondent's ground manager and demanded an apology; the ground manager allegedly replied that the flight stewards were "only doing their job."
- Petitioner filed a Complaint for damages on April 28, 2005 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, praying for:
- P5,000,000 as moral damages;
- P2,000,000 as nominal damages;
- P1,000,000 as exemplary damages;
- P300,000 as attorney's fees;
- P200,000 as litigation expenses; and
- costs of suit.
- Summons and a copy of the complaint were served on respondent on May 16, 2005 through Violeta Echevarria, General Manager of Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc. (Records, p. 11).
Procedural Posture in the Trial Court
- On May 30, 2005, respondent, by special appearance through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and over the person of the respondent.
- Grounds advanced by respondent:
- Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention limits where actions for damages arising from international carriage may be brought: at the option of the plaintiff before the court of domicile of the carrier, the carrier's principal place of business, the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made, or the court of the place of destination.
- Respondent is domiciled and has its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom;
- Petitioner's ticket was purchased in Italy (through Jeepney Travel S.A.S., in Rome);
- Place of destination was Rome, Italy;
- Service of summons was defective because it was made on Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc., not respondent's resident agent in the Philippines.
- Trial court order dated June 3, 2005 required petitioner to file Comment/Opposition; petitioner instead filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Formal Amendment to the Complaint and Issuance of Alias Summons on June 27, 2005, alleging the resident agent in the Philippines was Alonzo Q. Ancheta (SEC verification).
- Petitioner later filed a Motion to Resolve Pending Incident and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on September 9, 2005.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- On October 14, 2005, RTC Makati City, Branch 132, issued an Order granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
- RTC's reasoning:
- Acknowledged sympathy for petitioner's alleged ill-treatment but held courts must apply international law and treaty obligations the Philippines has voluntarily assumed, specifically the Warsaw Convention.
- Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the Philippines is not the domicile or principal place of business of respondent; petitioner's ticket was not issued in the Philippines and destination was Rome, Italy.
- Adherence to the Convention's limitations is required by comity of nations and pacta sunt servanda, and deviation could only be by proper denunciation as enunciated in Santos (cited).
- The court dismissed the complaint and found the question of propriety of service of summons moot due to lack of jurisdiction.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration; motion denied by RTC order dated January 4, 2006.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Primary issues certified by petitioner:
- Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over tortious conduct committed against a Filipino citizen and resident by airline personnel of a foreign carrier while traveling beyond the territorial limit of any foreign country, thereby placing it outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.
- Whether respondent, by filing a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and over its person, may be deemed to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the lower court, especially where the lawyer arguing for it is alleged to be the resident agent of the carrier.
Petitioner’s Arguments on Review
- Petitioner contended:
- Cause of action arose from tortious conduct, not from the contract of carriage, invoking Civil Code provisions on Human Relations (Articles 19 and 21) and Article 2176 (quasi-delict).
- Because her claim is tort-based, she has the option to pursue the case in Philippine jurisdiction pursuant to domestic law.
- Implicit challenge to application of Article 28(1) where cause of action is tort and not contractual.
Respondent’s Arguments on Review
- Respondent maintained:
- Petitioner's claim for damages falls squarely within Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, and jurisdiction is thus limited to courts enumerated by that Article (courts of