GR 152122; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152122; July 30, 2003
CHINA AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. DANIEL CHIOK, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Daniel Chiok purchased an airline ticket from petitioner China Airlines (CAL) for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila trip. The ticket was exclusively endorseable to Philippine Airlines (PAL). Chiok pre-scheduled and confirmed all flight segments. In Hong Kong for his return to Manila, PAL confirmed him on Flight PR 311. This flight was later cancelled due to a typhoon, and passengers were automatically rebooked for the next day. At the airport the following day, PAL personnel, specifically supervisor Carmen Chan, informed Chiok his name was not on the computer list and refused him boarding on the rebooked flight. During the ensuing confusion at the check-in counter, Chiok’s clutch bag containing cash and valuables was lost. His new luggage, containing cosmetics, also went missing after being taken by an airline employee.
ISSUE
Whether China Airlines, as the issuing carrier, can be held solidarily liable with Philippine Airlines, the actual carrier, for the damages suffered by the passenger due to the latter’s negligence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the solidary liability of CAL and PAL. The legal logic rests on the peculiar relationship and exacting responsibility of a common carrier to its passengers. A contract of carriage is created between the passenger and the ticket-issuing airline (CAL). For reasons of public policy and the passenger’s interest, the issuing carrier acts as the principal in that contract for the entire journey, even for segments operated by another carrier to which it has endorsed the ticket. Consequently, the issuing carrier is liable for the acts and omissions of the actual carrier (PAL) in performing the contract. PAL’s negligence in mishandling Chiok’s confirmed booking and luggage was established. Therefore, CAL, as the principal under the contract of carriage, is jointly and severally liable with its agent, PAL, for the resulting damages. The Court modified the actual damages awarded, deleting specific amounts for the lost cosmetics and cash due to insufficient evidence of their exact value, but upheld awards for moral and exemplary damages due to the wanton and reckless manner in which Chiok was treated.