Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Singapore v. Fernandez, GR No. 142305, 12:10:2003

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    Transportation Law

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Singapore v. Fernandez, GR No. 142305, 12:10:2003

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    17 views2 pages
    Transportation Law

    Original Title

    18. Singapore v. Fernandez, GR No. 142305, 12:10:2003

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Transportation Law

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views2 pages

    Singapore v. Fernandez, GR No. 142305, 12:10:2003

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    Transportation Law

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Singapore v. Fernandez, GR No.

    142305, 12/10/2003

    FACTS:
    Respondent Andion Fernandez is an acclaimed soprano in the Philippines and abroad. At
    the time of the incident she was availing of an educational grant from the Federal
    Republic of Germany pursuing a Master’s Degree in Music major in Voice. She was invited
    to sing before the King and Queen of Malaysia on Feb. 3-4, 1991. For this purpose, she took
    an airline ticket from Singapore Airlines (SAL) FOR THE Frankfurt-Manila-Malaysia route.
    Respondent had to pass by Manila in order to gather her wardrobe and rehearse with
    the pianist.

    SAL issued ticket for Flight SQ 27 leaving Frankfurt on Jan. 27, 1991 for Singapore with
    connections to Manila in the morning of Jan. 28, 1991. On Jan. 27, 1991 SQ 27 LEFT
    Frankfurt but arrived two hours late in Singapore on Jan. 28, 1991. By then, the aircraft
    bound for Manila had already left. Upon deplaning in Singapore, Fernandez approached
    the transit counter at Changi Airport and was told by a lady employee that there were no
    more flights to Manila on that day and that she had to stay in Singapore, if she wanted, she
    could fly to HK but at her own expense. Respondent stayed with a relative in Singapore for the
    night. The next day, she was brought back to the airport and approached a counter for
    immediate booking but was told by a male employee: “Can’t you see I am doing something.”
    She explained her predicament but was told: “It’s your problem, not ours.”

    The respondent never made it to Manila and was forced to take a direct flight to Malaysia
    on Jan. 29, 1991 through the efforts of her mother anda travel agency in Manila. Her
    mother had to travel to Malaysia with the wardrobe which caused them to incur expenses
    of ₱50,000.RTC Manila ordered SAL to pay respondent ₱50k as actual damages, ₱250k as moral
    damages, ₱100k as exemplary damages, ₱75k as attorney’s fees and costs of suit. CA affirmed
    RTC decision.

    ISSUE: Did SAL break the contract of carriage?

    RULING: Yes, when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular
    flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger has every right to expect
    that he be transported on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens
    itself to a suit for a breach of contract of carriage. A contract of carriage requires common
    carriers to transport passengers safely as human care and foresight can provide (Art. 1755,
    NCC).

    In an action for brech of a contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that
    the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that is necessary is to prove the
    existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier. SAL failed to
    inform of the delay in the turnaround aircraft in Frankfurt, neither did it ask if the
    respondent and 25 other delayed passengers are amenable to a stay in Singapore. Even SAL’s
    manual mandates that in cases of urgent connections the head office of defendant in
    Singapore has to be informed of delays so as to make needed arrangements for connecting
    passengers. When respondent conveyed her apprehension in Frankfurt of the impending
    delay, she was assured by petitioner’s personnel in Frankfurt that she will be transported
    to Manila on the same date. The lady employee at the counter in Singapore only
    allowed respondent to use the phone upon threat of suit, the male employee at the
    counter marked “Immediate Attention to Passengers with Immediate Booking” was rude to her.
    Petition is denied. CA decision affirmed.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy