G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997
PURITA S. MAPA, CARMINA S. MAPA and CORNELIO P. MAPA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TRANS-WORLD AIRLINES INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Purita S. Mapa and her daughter Carmina S. Mapa purchased TWA tickets in Bangkok, Thailand, for travel from Los Angeles to Chicago, with stops in New York and Boston. On August 27, 1990, at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, they checked in seven pieces of luggage for a TWA flight to Boston. Due to confusion at the gate and a subsequent flight delay, they arrived in Boston but only retrieved three of their seven bags. They reported the loss to TWA, which failed to locate the missing luggage. The total claimed value of the lost items was $11,283.79. After negotiations, TWA unilaterally offered $2,560.00 as full settlement, which the petitioners accepted as partial payment on July 19, 1991. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint for damages against TWA in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. TWA moved to dismiss the case, invoking Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, which limits the forums where an action for damages against an air carrier may be brought. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action for damages against TWA, a foreign air carrier, in light of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and held that Philippine courts have jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the Warsaw Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of venues where a plaintiff must bring an action; it merely prescribes the four forums where a plaintiff may bring an action. The Convention does not preclude the operation of the domestic law of the contracting state, particularly its rules of jurisdiction and venue, provided the chosen forum is one of the four places listed in Article 28(1). Since TWA has a place of business in the Philippines (in Makati, Metro Manila) through which it conducts business and sells tickets, the Philippines qualifies as a place “where [the carrier] has a place of business through which the contract has been made” under Article 28(1). The contract of carriage was initiated and purchased in Bangkok, but the Court interpreted the phrase “through which the contract has been made” to include the carrier’s place of business that facilitated the making of the contract, which in this case includes its office in the Philippines that oversees sales and operations. Therefore, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction to hear the case. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.