Mapa vs. CA

MAPA VS C-A (275-286) Mapa purchased from TWA Trans World Airlines 2 airline tickets in Bankok Thailand, for Los Angeles- New York – Boston St. Louis –Chicago, all of the USA. The domicile of the carrier TWA was Kansas City, Missouri USA, Where its principal place of business was likewise located. The place of business of TWA where the contract was made was in Bangkok Thailand. The place of destination was Chicago-USA. The MAPAS left Manila on board Pal for L-A, They left checked in 7 pieces of luggage’s at TWA counter at JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they went to the wrong gate. Hey were however allowed to take a later TWA plane to Boston which was delayed because of the thunder storm. Upon arrival at boston they were only retrieved 3 out of 7 luggage’s which loss was immediately reported to TWA with a total value of S 2,560 as constituting full satisfaction of their claim which the MAPAS accepted as partial payment for the actual loss of their baggage’s. Thereafter MAPA filed a case against TWA in the Philippines Similar to the case of Santos III , TWA move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on section 28(1) warsaw contending that the complaint should have been brought either in Bankok where the contract was entered into , or in boston which was the place of destination or in Kansas City which was the carriers domicile and principla place of business. MAPAS claimed that the WARSAW convention was not applicable because the contract was not an Internationl Transportation as contemplated under the provision of the WARSAW convention the RTC as affirmed by the C-A dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. ISSUE: Is the Warsaw Convention applicable? Held: Warsaw convention was not applicable because the contract does not involve an “INTERANTIONAL TRANPORTATION” base on the two categories. (1) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are situated within the territories of two High Contracting Parties regardless of whether or not there be a break in the transportation or a transshipment; and (2) that where the place of departure and the place of destination are within the territory of a single High Contracting Party if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, or authority of another power, even though the power is not a party of the Convention.

Whether the contracts were of international transportation is to be solely determined from the TWA tickets issued to them in Bangkok, Thailand, which showed that their itinerary was Los Angeles-New York-Boston-St. Louis-Chicago. Accordingly, since the place of departure (Los Angeles) and the place of destination (Chicago) are both within the territory of one High Contracting Party, with no agreed stopping place in a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, suzerainty or authority of another Power, the contracts did not constitute 'international transportation' as defined by the convention.