Lhuillier v. British Airways
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edna Diago Lhuillier filed a complaint for damages against respondent British Airways before the RTC of Makati City, alleging that on February 28, 2005, during flight BA 548 from London to Rome, a flight attendant refused to assist her with her luggage and another flight attendant lectured her on plane safety in a demeaning manner. Upon arrival in Rome, she complained but was told the stewards were just doing their job. Petitioner sought ₱8.5 million in damages. Procedural History: Respondent, through special appearance, filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Philippine courts lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, as the action should have been filed in London (carrier's domicile/principal place of business) or Rome (place of destination/ticket issuance). Respondent also argued lack of jurisdiction over its person due to improper service of summons. Petitioner sought to amend her complaint to correct the service of summons. The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss, holding that Philippine courts were bound by the Warsaw Convention and thus divested of jurisdiction. The RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising pure questions of law: (1) whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over tortious conduct committed by foreign airline personnel outside Philippine territory and thus outside the Warsaw Convention's ambit; and (2) whether respondent, by filing a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, submitted itself to the court's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a tortious conduct committed against a Filipino citizen and resident by airline personnel of a foreign carrier travelling beyond the territorial limits of any foreign country, and thus outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention. Whether respondent air carrier, in filing its Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over its person, may be deemed to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the lower court, especially when its lawyer is also its resident agent.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The October 14, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 132, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the applicability of the Warsaw Convention: The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. It reiterated that the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in the Philippines, having been ratified by the country. The flight from London, United Kingdom to Rome, Italy, constituted an "international carriage" under Article 1 of the Convention, as both the UK and Italy are High Contracting Parties. Consequently, jurisdiction over actions for damages is governed by Article 28(1) of the Convention. This article provides four exclusive jurisdictional grounds: the court of the carrier's domicile, the court of its principal place of business, the court where the contract was made, or the court of the place of destination. In this case, the respondent is domiciled and has its principal place of business in London, the ticket was issued in Rome, and Rome was the place of destination. Therefore, only the courts of London or Rome had jurisdiction, and the Philippine courts were divested of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that allegations of tortious conduct, such as those claimed by the petitioner, do not remove the case from the purview of the Warsaw Convention, citing Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines and foreign jurisprudence like Carey v. United Airlines and Bloom v. Alaska Airlines. The Court emphasized that the Convention provides the exclusive remedy for conduct falling within its provisions and creates no exception for intentional conduct. On the issue of voluntary submission to jurisdiction: The Court ruled that respondent did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court. By filing a Motion to Dismiss through special appearance, respondent specifically challenged the court's jurisdiction over its person and the subject matter. The Court cited Section 20, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure and reiterated its ruling in La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, stating that a special appearance to question jurisdiction, even if accompanied by other grounds for dismissal, does not constitute voluntary appearance or waiver of the objection to jurisdiction. The Court noted that respondent consistently maintained its special appearance and objection to jurisdiction throughout the proceedings, thus it cannot be deemed to have waived its defense of lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The Warsaw Convention, as a treaty ratified by the Philippines, has the force and effect of law. Article 28(1) of the Convention is jurisdictional in character and dictates the exclusive venues where actions for damages arising from international air carriage may be brought. Allegations of tortious conduct do not remove a case from the purview of the Convention, and a special appearance to question jurisdiction is not a voluntary submission to the court's authority.