NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. (TORRES) V CA 284 SCRA 408 DAVIDE, JR., January 20, 1998 NATURE PETITION FOR Review on certiorari of a decision of the CA FACTS - RolandoTorres (TORRES) went to Chicago to purchase firearms for the Philippine Senate, and on his way back he checked-in and presented before Northwest Airlines, Inc (NAI)’s representatives his 2 identical baggage, 1 of which contains the firearms which NAI’s representatives tagged with marking “Contains Firearms”. Upon arrival in Manila, TORRES allegedly was not able to claim his baggage containing the firearms as it was recalled by US Customs verification. When the baggage was returned, the firearms were gone. -NAI refused to settle amicably so Torres prayed before TC for NAI to pay AD, MD, TD, ED, and attorney’s fees. ANSWER : (a) US Customs agents ordered the return of the baggage; (b) in Chicago, the baggage did not -ANSWER: contain any firearms when opened by US Customs agents; (c) since the baggage ordered back to Chicago did not contain any firearms then the baggage which Torres received upon arrival must have contained the missing firearms WAY OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE with MOTION FOR -plaintiff presented its evidence. NAI filed MOTION TO DISMISS BY WAY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT where they moved for (a) dismissal of the complaint in so far as it prays MD, ED, TD and attorney’s fees as the evidence presented did not entitle him to such – Demurrer part (r33); (b) summary judgment to be rendered awarding plaintiff $640 as AD as limited by the Warsaw Convention and the contract of carriage – Motion for summary judgment judgment part (R35). Plaintiff did not object BUT insisted that he is entitled to damages prayed for (i.e. MD, ED, TD and attorney’s fees) - said order was deemed submitted for resolution TC: TC: full-blown decision ordering NAI to pay Torres (1) $9009.32 with legal interest representing the value of the goods lost by the plaintiff – act of NAI personnel in Tokyo Airport in just guessing which baggage contained firearms = willful misconduct (removed limitation to liability of NAI under the Sec22(2) of the Warsaw Convention; Convention; (2) P100k atty’s fees; (3) P5,181.09 filing fees; (4) P20k expenses for litigation; litigation; (5) P50k as MD for the inconvenience, anxiety and worry by reason of unjustifiable refusal to settle -TORRES and NAI appealed; TORRES argues that AD, MD, ED should have been awarded; NAI argues: (1) denial of due process because of premature resolution of case, preventing NAI from presenting evidence; (2) error in awarding damages, atty’s fees and expenses of litigation CA: CA: sustained TC’s award BUT TC erred in determining by way of summary judgment the amount of damages (R34.3); TC could not dispose of the case on its entirety as NAI moved for summary judgment on AD issue, and for dismissal by way of demurrer to evidence of MD and attorney’s fees – no motion heard for said claims under R34.2; on demurrer to evidence, in TC’s impliedly not granting demurrer to evidence, NAI should have been allowed to present evidence (R35.1). remanded case to TC, -CA: NAI’s MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION denied Northwest contests: TORRES TORRES right to AD was based on (1) loss of firearms; (2) finding of willful misconduct misconduct arbitrary; (3) TORRES failed to produce US license for shipment of firearms – importation illegal, no damages could arise therefrom ISSUE 1. WON TC did err in deciding the entire case on its merits when a demurrer to evidence had been filed 2. WON a summary judgment is proper HELD 1. YES Reasoning. Under R33.1 of ROC, the TC had no other choice than to grant or deny the demurrer BUT not deny the demurrer and grant claims on a finding that TORRES has established a preponderance of evidence in support of such claims. TC should merely deny demurrer and set a date for the reception of NAI’s evidence in chief. 2. NO. Ratio. R35 now allow parties to submit not only affidavits but also depositions or admissions in support of their respective contentions. A motion for summary judgment may be filed by the claimant “at any time after the answer is filed” or by the defending party “at any time” -summary judgment is allowed if, except as to amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. There is still a genuine SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT IN ORDER. issue on the fact and amount of actual damages so MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Reasoning. NAI, in submitting for summary judgment, deemed to have hypothetically admitted arguendo that the firearms were lost BUT it did not waive the presentation of evidence that it was not in fact liable for the alleged loss of firearms. -ON NAI’S LIABILITY LIMITATION ARGUMENT BASED ON W IAC: Warsaw Convention ARSAW CONVENTION – Alitalia v IAC: should only be deemed a limit of liability in cases where the cause of death or injury to person, or
destruction, loss or damage to property or delay in its transpord is not attributable to or attended by any willful misconduct, bad faith, recklessness, or otherwise improper conduct on the part of any official or employee for which the carrier is responsible and there is otherwise no special or extraordinary form of resulting injury. Disposition. IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered (1)PARTLY GRANTING the NIA’s petition by setting aside that portion affirming the summary judgment judgment as to the right of TORRES to AD; (2) Denying for want of merit TORRES petition; (3) remanding caseto TC for reception f evidence for NAI and for rendition of judgment on the merits. No pronouncement as to costs. .
