Case Summary (G.R. No. 101538)
Key Dates
• October 21, 1986 – Ticket purchase in San Francisco.
• December 19, 1986 – Check-in in San Francisco; no reservation confirmed for Tokyo–Manila segment.
• March 12, 1987 – Complaint filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
• April 13, 1987 – NOA’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• February 1, 1988 – RTC grants motion; case dismissed.
• Court of Appeals affirms; motion for reconsideration denied.
• Petition to the Supreme Court ensues.
Key Dates
Applicable Law
• Warsaw Convention (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air), to which the Philippines acceded in 1950 and which has the force of national law.
• Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention—exclusive forums for actions for damage.
• 1987 Philippine Constitution—due process, equal protection, access to courts.
• Civil Code Article 24—protection of parties at a disadvantage (e.g., minors).
Issues Presented
- Whether Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention violates constitutional due process, equal protection or access-to-courts guarantees under the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction or proper venue under Article 28(1).
- Whether Civil Code Article 24 requires Philippine courts to hear the petition because the plaintiff is a minor.
Constitutionality of Article 28(1)
• The Warsaw Convention is a duly ratified treaty with the force of law; its constitutionality is presumed.
• Courts decline to address constitutional challenges when cases can be resolved on non-constitutional grounds.
• The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change of circumstances) does not void a treaty absent a formal political act of denunciation or rejection.
• The constitutional right of access to courts extends only to courts vested with jurisdiction under existing laws, here including the Warsaw Convention.
Jurisdiction and Venue under Article 28(1)
Scope of the Convention
• Article 1(2) defines “international transportation” by reference to the contract (the ticket) between two High Contracting Parties (U.S. and Philippines).
Jurisdictional Character
• Article 28(1) enumerates the only courts competent to hear damage claims:
- Court of the carrier’s domicile.
- Court of the carrier’s principal place of business.
- Court where the contract was made through a place of business.
- Court at the place of destination.
• Article 32 renders void any prior agreement to alter these forum rules, underscoring their jurisdictional (not merely venue) nature.
Waiver Argument
• A rule of jurisdiction cannot be waived or consented into existence; objections to improper venue require explicit statutory or treaty provision.
• NOA’s motion, though labeled “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” clearly asserted improper forum, which cannot be deemed waived.
Determining the Proper Forum
Place of Destination
• The ultimate destination is fixed by the contract: San Francisco. Intermediate stops (Manila) are not “destinations” under Article 1(2) and Article 28(1).
Carrier’s Domicile
• Corporate domicile is where the carrier is incorporated (Minnesota), not every place of business. Branch offices in the Philippines do not transform Philippine courts into courts of domicile.
Scope of Covered Actions
• Article 17 covers liability for passenger injury or damage.
• Article 25(1) provides that willful misc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 101538)
Factual Background
- Petitioner is a minor and Philippine resident, suing through his father and legal guardian, Augusto Benedicto Santos.
- Private respondent Northwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a Minnesota‐based foreign corporation licensed to do business and maintain a branch office in the Philippines.
- On October 21, 1986, the petitioner purchased a round-trip ticket in San Francisco for travel San Francisco→Tokyo→Manila and back (return date unspecified).
- On December 19, 1986, petitioner checked in at NOA’s San Francisco counter, but was told his confirmed Tokyo→Manila reservation was non-existent and was wait-listed.
Procedural History
- March 12, 1987: Petitioner filed suit for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
- April 13, 1987: NOA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention.
- February 1, 1988: RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); CA affirmed the dismissal.
- June 26, 1991: Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising constitutional, jurisdictional, and minority-protection claims.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention is unconstitutional under due process or equal protection.
- Whether a fundamental change in circumstances (rebus sic stantibus) renders Article 28(1) inapplicable.
- Whether Article 28(1) denies petitioner access to Philippine courts.
- Whether Article 28(1) is jurisdictional or merely a venue rule.
- Whether Manila qualifies as the place of destination under Article 28(1).
- Whether NOA’s Philippine branch qualifies as its domicile.
- Whether tort-based allegations fall outside the Convention’s scope.
- Whether Article 24 of the Civil Code on minority protection can overcome the jurisdictional bar.
I. Constitutionality of Article 28(1)
- Treaty status:
- Warsaw Convention ratified by Philippines (Instrument signed October 13, 1950; effective February 9, 1951).
- Proclamation No. 201 (September 23, 1955) cemented adherence.
- Convention has force of law under Philippine Constitution.
- Petitioner’s due process/equal protection claim:
- Argues arbitrary classification between ticket-buyers in diff