G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010
EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER, Petitioner, vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier filed a Complaint for damages against respondent British Airways before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. She alleged that on February 28, 2005, during respondent’s flight from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy, flight attendants refused to assist her with her luggage and singled her out for a safety lecture in a manner that was offensive and humiliating. Upon arrival, her complaint to the ground manager was met with a statement that the stewards were “only doing their job.” Petitioner prayed for payment of moral, nominal, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. Summons was served on respondent through the General Manager of Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc. Respondent, by special appearance through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the case and over its person. It argued that under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, an action for damages must be brought either in the court of the carrier’s domicile (London), its principal place of business (London), where the contract was made (Rome, Italy, where the ticket was purchased), or the place of destination (Rome, Italy). Respondent also claimed improper service of summons. The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss, ruling it was bound by the Warsaw Convention’s jurisdictional provisions and that the Philippines was not among the permissible fora. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a tortious conduct committed against a Filipino citizen by airline personnel of a foreign carrier during international travel, allegedly outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.
2. Whether respondent, by filing a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, may be deemed to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the lower court.

RULING

The petition is without merit.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Warsaw Convention, to which the Philippines is a signatory, has the force and effect of law. The Convention applies because the air travel was an “international carriage” between the United Kingdom and Italy, both High Contracting Parties. Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff may bring an action for damages only before: (a) the court where the carrier is domiciled; (b) the court where the carrier has its principal place of business; (c) the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made; or (d) the court of the place of destination. In this case, respondent is domiciled in London, its principal place of business is in London, the ticket was purchased in Rome, and the place of destination was Rome. The Philippines is not among these permissible jurisdictions. The cause of action for damages arising from incidents occurring during international carriage, whether based on contract or tort (quasi-delict), falls within the scope of the Warsaw Convention. The Convention provides the exclusive remedy and governs the places where the action may be brought. Therefore, Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction.
2. On Submission to Jurisdiction: Respondent’s special appearance through counsel to file a Motion to Dismiss based precisely on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over its person did not constitute a voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. A party challenging the court’s jurisdiction by motion to dismiss is not deemed to have submitted to its authority. The fact that the lawyer arguing the motion was also alleged to be the carrier’s resident agent does not alter this principle, as the motion was filed under a special appearance specifically to contest jurisdiction.
The RTC’s Orders dismissing the case are affirmed.