Lhuillier vs. British Airways

The Warsaw Convention governs all claims arising from international air carriage, including those founded on tort, quasi-delict, or willful misconduct committed during the flight; Article 28(1) thereof is a mandatory jurisdictional provision (not merely a rule on venue) that exclusively limits the courts where actions for damages may be instituted to: (a) the court of the carrier's domicile; (b) the court of the carrier's principal place of business; (c) the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract was made; or (d) the court of the place of destination. Furthermore, a defendant's special appearance through counsel to file a motion to dismiss challenging jurisdiction over the subject matter and person, even when accompanied by other grounds for dismissal, does not constitute voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction nor a waiver of jurisdictional objections.

The case arises from an incident aboard British Airways Flight 548 on February 28, 2005, where the petitioner, a Filipino citizen and resident, alleged that she was subjected to rude, humiliating, and menacing behavior by the respondent's flight attendants while traveling in business class from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy. The dispute centers on the extraterritorial application of the Warsaw Convention and the jurisdictional limitations it imposes on Philippine courts regarding tort claims arising from international air travel.

• On February 28, 2005, petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier boarded respondent British Airways Flight 548 from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy, traveling in business class.
• While on board, petitioner requested flight attendant Julian Halliday to assist her in placing her hand-carried luggage in the overhead bin, but Halliday allegedly refused and sarcastically remarked that if he were to help all 300 passengers, he would have a broken back.
• Prior to landing in Rome, flight attendant Nickolas Kerrigan allegedly singled out petitioner from among all business class passengers to lecture her on plane safety, making her appear ignorant and uneducated.
• When petitioner assured Kerrigan that she knew the safety regulations as a frequent traveler, Kerrigan allegedly thrust his face a few centimeters from hers and menacingly told her, "We don't like your attitude."
• Upon arrival in Rome, petitioner complained to the respondent's ground manager and demanded an apology, but the manager allegedly declared that the flight stewards were only doing their job.
• Petitioner filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Makati City on April 28, 2005, praying for P5 million in moral damages, P2 million in nominal damages, P1 million in exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
• The ticket was issued in Rome, Italy, through Jeepney Travel S.A.S.; the place of departure was London, United Kingdom; and the place of destination was Rome, Italy.
• British Airways is a British corporation domiciled in London, United Kingdom, with its principal place of business in London.
• Summons was served on respondent through Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc., which respondent claimed was not its resident agent in the Philippines.

• The cause of action arose not from the contract of carriage but from the tortious conduct of respondent's airline personnel, specifically violations of Articles 19, 21, and 2176 of the Civil Code on Human Relations and quasi-delict.
• Since the action was predicated on tort and not breach of contract, the Warsaw Convention does not apply, and Philippine courts have jurisdiction under domestic laws.
• Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines is inapplicable because it involved breach of contract, whereas the present case involves tortious conduct.
• The pronouncement in Santos III that tortious conduct is covered by the Warsaw Convention was merely an obiter dictum, not the ratio decidendi.
• The fact that the alleged tortious acts occurred aboard a plane is merely incidental and irrelevant to the application of the Warsaw Convention.
• By filing a Motion to Dismiss through counsel who is also the resident agent of the carrier, respondent effectively submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

• The claim for damages falls within the ambit of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, which exclusively limits the jurisdiction over actions for damages to the courts of: (a) the carrier's domicile; (b) the carrier's principal place of business; (c) where the contract was made; or (d) the place of destination.
• Since respondent is domiciled and has its principal place of business in London, and the contract was made in Rome with Rome as the destination, only the courts of London or Rome have jurisdiction.
• The service of summons was defective because it was made upon Euro-Philippine Airline Services, Inc., which is not respondent's resident agent in the Philippines.
• The special appearance through counsel to file the Motion to Dismiss challenging jurisdiction does not constitute voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the respondent, by filing a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over its person, is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
  • Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a tortious conduct committed against a Filipino citizen by airline personnel of a foreign carrier during international travel, or whether such conduct is outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.
  • Whether the Warsaw Convention applies to actions based on tort, quasi-delict, or willful misconduct, or only to actions based on breach of contract.

• Procedural:
  • The respondent's filing of a Motion to Dismiss challenging jurisdiction over the subject matter and person, even when accompanied by other grounds for dismissal under Rule 16, constitutes a special appearance and does not amount to voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.
  • Citing La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held that Section 20 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly states that the inclusion of other grounds in a motion to dismiss aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
  • A special appearance challenging jurisdiction is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver of the objection to jurisdiction over the person; therefore, respondent is not deemed to have voluntarily appeared before the trial court.
  • The issue regarding the propriety of service of summons was rendered moot by the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
• Substantive:
  • The Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in the Philippines as a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government.
  • The flight from London to Rome constitutes "international carriage" under Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention because the place of departure and destination are situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties (United Kingdom and Italy).
  • Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention is jurisdictional in character, not merely a venue provision, and provides the exclusive fora for bringing actions for damages.
  • Since respondent is domiciled and has its principal place of business in London, and the ticket was issued in Rome with Rome as the destination, jurisdiction properly lies only with the courts of London or Rome, not the Philippine courts.
  • Allegations of tortious conduct, quasi-delict, or willful misconduct committed against an airline passenger during the course of international carriage do not bring the case outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention; the Convention governs all actions arising from international air travel and provides the exclusive remedy for such conduct.
  • The ruling in Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines that tortious conduct is covered by the Warsaw Convention was the ratio decidendi, not merely an obiter dictum, and is controlling in this case.
  • The RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

• Pacta sunt servanda — The principle that treaty stipulations must be complied with in good faith. The Court applied this to emphasize that the Philippines, as a signatory to the Warsaw Convention, is bound by its provisions and must adhere to the jurisdictional limitations set forth therein.
• Jurisdiction under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention — The provision is jurisdictional (not merely venue) and mandatory, limiting actions for damages to four specific fora: (a) court of domicile of carrier; (b) court of principal place of business; (c) court where contract was made; or (d) court of place of destination. The Court applied this to divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction over the case.
• International Carriage — Defined under Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention as carriage where the place of departure and destination are situated within territories of two High Contracting Parties. The Court applied this to determine that the London-Rome flight was subject to the Convention.
• Special Appearance vs. Voluntary Appearance — Under Section 20 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant who files a motion to dismiss challenging jurisdiction over the person, even with other grounds, is not deemed to have voluntarily appeared or waived jurisdictional objections. The Court applied this to rule that respondent did not submit to the trial court's jurisdiction.
• Warsaw Convention as Exclusive Remedy — The Convention governs all actions arising from international air carriage, including those sounding in tort or quasi-delict, and provides the exclusive remedy for claims arising from conduct during such carriage. The Court applied this to reject the petitioner's argument that tort claims fall outside the Convention.

• "Jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice."
• "The Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country."
• "It is thus settled that allegations of tortious conduct committed against an airline passenger during the course of the international carriage do not bring the case outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention."
• "A special appearance before the court--challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other grounds--is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court."

• Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines — Controlling precedent establishing that Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention is jurisdictional (not merely venue) and that the Convention applies to actions based on tort or willful misconduct, not just breach of contract.
• La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals — Established that challenging jurisdiction via motion to dismiss, even with other grounds, is not a voluntary appearance or waiver of jurisdictional objections.
• Garcia v. Sandiganbayan — Reiterated the doctrine in La Naval regarding special appearance and voluntary appearance under Rule 14, Section 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Carey v. United Airlines — Cited for the principle that the Warsaw Convention governs actions arising from confrontational incidents during international flights, even involving intentional misconduct by flight attendants.
• Bloom v. Alaska Airlines — Cited for the principle that the Warsaw Convention provides the exclusive remedy for conduct during international air travel, with no exception for injuries suffered as a result of intentional conduct or torts.
• Mapa v. Court of Appeals — Cited regarding the definition of "international carriage" under Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention.

• Warsaw Convention (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air), Article 1 — Defines "international carriage" as carriage where the place of departure and destination are within territories of two High Contracting Parties.
• Warsaw Convention, Article 28(1) — Specifies the four exclusive fora where actions for damages must be brought: domicile of carrier, principal place of business, place where contract was made, or place of destination.
• Warsaw Convention, Article 32 — Cited to underscore the mandatory nature of Article 28(1) regarding jurisdiction.
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 19 — Cited by petitioner regarding human relations (every person must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith).
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 21 — Cited by petitioner regarding human relations (willful injury contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy).
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 2176 — Cited by petitioner regarding quasi-delict.
• Rules of Court, Rule 14, Section 20 — Governs voluntary appearance and special appearance; provides that inclusion of other grounds in a motion to dismiss does not constitute voluntary appearance.