Rights of Airline Passengers in the Philippines

[Arianespace]

cancellations due to unscheduled maintenance is not a valid claim for airlines. Because the event can be seen in advance for which an airline is anticipated to provide back up service for this eventuality. In the US, you always end up in hotel, while you wait. In the Philippines, you will end up nowhere waiting, unless you are a foreigner, as what was clearly demonstrated in one of the you tube blogs about PAL. Because they will always file a claim against airline back home. That is indicative of how nice we are as a people, even if we are already abused.

[JNC03]

There is different treatments for domestic and international flights (specially US flights where there are a lot of business travellers and foreigners)

[Arianespace]

romantic_guy08 wrote

I find AO 1 a bit toothless...

I can empathize with passengers whose flights are cancelled, and their new schedule is sometimes a week a way (which is happening now with PAL flights) and the carrier won't be shouldering cost for the extended stay... very difficult especially if you're stuck overseas...

Once filed a complaint against PR before the CAB for violating APBR... but all they got was a slap in the wrist..

And this is only an AO... legislation would be much better with stiffer penalties... if not, something similar to EU Regulation 261 would be nice...

Arianespace wrote

We already have a laws for that (CA146) since 1936, amended by RA11659, effective April 1, 2023, where AAP is the first beneficiary. Another one is the "Law on Transportation", incorporated in the Civil Code enacted in 1950, and some other commercial laws.

But then, you need a lawyer to file that claim in court. Not in CAB. Most of the time, Airlines settles and give you more than what you want because they always lose. Certainly, that is not slap on the wrist. In fact, it is one reason why Air France left the country. Once any of their plane lands, they would not be flying back because they will be taken by the court.

Remember, I told you seeking court compensation, here is the latest example of it.

CEBU, Philippines — A trial court in Mandaue City has opposed the Civil Aeronautics Board policy allowing airline companies to overbook up to 10 percent of their seating capacity.

The decision penned by Regional Trial Court Judge Ferdinand Rafanan came as the Senate Committee on Tourism chaired by Senator Nancy Binay has launched an investigation into the complaints against Cebu Pacific about overbooking, offloading and glitches in booking flights on June 21, 2023.

“There were complaints that travelers were offloaded by Cebu Pacific without any verifiable cause or reason due to the airline’s overbooking,” Binay said in Senate Resolution No. 575.

The court said that in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent.

“All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier,” Rafanan said in his decision dated June 20, 2023.

The court defined a contract of carriage as one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or goods from one place to another for fixed price.

In deciding the case filed by now Cebu Sixth District Provincial Board Member Glenn Anthony Soco, the court said “that the plaintiff held a confirmed reservation for the Cebu Pacific Flight 5J 553 bound to Cebu from Manila is not disputed.”

Rafanan said that undoubtedly, Soco is entitled as of right under the contract to be accommodated in the flight and the defendant is bound to transport him on the said flight.

Ivan Henry Gaw, the Guest Service Manager of Cebu Pacific, confirmed in court that at the time Soco checked in at the counter on April 16, 2011, the system of the airline showed full capacity and he can no longer be accommodate for the flight.

In situation like this, the standard policy of the airline is to look for other passengers who are willing to volunteer their seats in lieu of other passengers with confirmed tickets and could no longer be accommodated.

Otherwise, the passenger will be offered an option to either take the subsequent flight or be given a refund.

Gaw also cited CAB Economic Regulation (ER No.7) which recognizes the practice of airline companies on overbooking that does not exceed 10 percent of the seating capacity of the aircraft.

Under Section 5 of the ER 7, for passengers of domestic flights, 100 percent of the value of the first remaining flight coupon plus the amount of P150 are given as compensation for passengers who are bumped off from flights.

The defendant airline also proposed a roundtrip ticket and a confirmed booking to the next available flight but Soco refused.

Another witness Juliet dela Rosa, the Airport Performance Officer of Cebu Pacific Air, reiterated the Gaw’s testimony.

However, the court said the defendant’s contention that it exercised extraordinary diligence in offering timely assistance to Soco by providing him with a seat on the next flight and a roundtrip ticket is irrelevant.

“The defendant’s allegation that airlines are allowed to overbook up to 10% of their seating capacity is also irrelevant. The defendant was bound by its contractual obligations and its failure to fulfill them cannot be excused,” the court said.

Since it has been established that the defendant defaulted on its obligations under the contract of carriage, the court also determined whether Soco is entitled to the relief sought in his complaint.

The court ordered the defendant to pay Soco a total amount of P500,000 as and by way of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and to pay the costs of suit.

“Na-vindicated ta, the court ruled in our favor. Para nako it’s a moral victory ni para nako, I am not doing this dili lang para ako lang,” Soco told The Freeman.

Soco filed the civil case for damages on May 24, 2011 against Cebu Pacific Air alleging that by reason of its breach of obligation to transport him, he suffered inconvenience, serious anxiety, physical suffering, and sleepless night.
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-news/2023/07/09/2279797/rtc-opposes-cabs-policy

CEBU CITY – Mandaue City regional trial court has ordered Cebu Pacific Air to pay PHP500,000 in damages to a provincial official who was bumped off from his scheduled flight from Manila to Cebu.

Mandaue City’s RTC Branch 55 Presiding Judge Ferdinand Rafanan ordered Cebu Pacific Air to pay Cebu's (6th District) Provincial Board Member Glenn Soco moral damages of PHP200,000, exemplary damages of PHP200,000, and PHP100,000 attorney’s and litigation expenses.

The order stemmed from a 12-year-old case filed by Soco against the airline for “breach of obligation to transport him,” which he claimed had caused him inconvenience, serious anxiety, physical suffering and sleepless night.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1205331

See, our Laws are not toothless as anyone claims.

[romantic_guy08]

Arianespace wrote

romantic_guy08 wrote

I find AO 1 a bit toothless...

I can empathize with passengers whose flights are cancelled, and their new schedule is sometimes a week a way (which is happening now with PAL flights) and the carrier won't be shouldering cost for the extended stay... very difficult especially if you're stuck overseas...

Once filed a complaint against PR before the CAB for violating APBR... but all they got was a slap in the wrist..

And this is only an AO... legislation would be much better with stiffer penalties... if not, something similar to EU Regulation 261 would be nice...

Arianespace wrote

We already have a laws for that (CA146) since 1936, amended by RA11659, effective April 1, 2023, where AAP is the first beneficiary. Another one is the "Law on Transportation", incorporated in the Civil Code enacted in 1950, and some other commercial laws.

But then, you need a lawyer to file that claim in court. Not in CAB. Most of the time, Airlines settles and give you more than what you want because they always lose. Certainly, that is not slap on the wrist. In fact, it is one reason why Air France left the country. Once any of their plane lands, they would not be flying back because they will be taken by the court.

Remember, I told you seeking court compensation, here is the latest example of it.

CEBU, Philippines — A trial court in Mandaue City has opposed the Civil Aeronautics Board policy allowing airline companies to overbook up to 10 percent of their seating capacity.

The decision penned by Regional Trial Court Judge Ferdinand Rafanan came as the Senate Committee on Tourism chaired by Senator Nancy Binay has launched an investigation into the complaints against Cebu Pacific about overbooking, offloading and glitches in booking flights on June 21, 2023.

“There were complaints that travelers were offloaded by Cebu Pacific without any verifiable cause or reason due to the airline’s overbooking,” Binay said in Senate Resolution No. 575.

The court said that in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent.

“All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier,” Rafanan said in his decision dated June 20, 2023.

The court defined a contract of carriage as one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or goods from one place to another for fixed price.

In deciding the case filed by now Cebu Sixth District Provincial Board Member Glenn Anthony Soco, the court said “that the plaintiff held a confirmed reservation for the Cebu Pacific Flight 5J 553 bound to Cebu from Manila is not disputed.”

Rafanan said that undoubtedly, Soco is entitled as of right under the contract to be accommodated in the flight and the defendant is bound to transport him on the said flight.

Ivan Henry Gaw, the Guest Service Manager of Cebu Pacific, confirmed in court that at the time Soco checked in at the counter on April 16, 2011, the system of the airline showed full capacity and he can no longer be accommodate for the flight.

In situation like this, the standard policy of the airline is to look for other passengers who are willing to volunteer their seats in lieu of other passengers with confirmed tickets and could no longer be accommodated.

Otherwise, the passenger will be offered an option to either take the subsequent flight or be given a refund.

Gaw also cited CAB Economic Regulation (ER No.7) which recognizes the practice of airline companies on overbooking that does not exceed 10 percent of the seating capacity of the aircraft.

Under Section 5 of the ER 7, for passengers of domestic flights, 100 percent of the value of the first remaining flight coupon plus the amount of P150 are given as compensation for passengers who are bumped off from flights.

The defendant airline also proposed a roundtrip ticket and a confirmed booking to the next available flight but Soco refused.

Another witness Juliet dela Rosa, the Airport Performance Officer of Cebu Pacific Air, reiterated the Gaw’s testimony.

However, the court said the defendant’s contention that it exercised extraordinary diligence in offering timely assistance to Soco by providing him with a seat on the next flight and a roundtrip ticket is irrelevant.

“The defendant’s allegation that airlines are allowed to overbook up to 10% of their seating capacity is also irrelevant. The defendant was bound by its contractual obligations and its failure to fulfill them cannot be excused,” the court said.

Since it has been established that the defendant defaulted on its obligations under the contract of carriage, the court also determined whether Soco is entitled to the relief sought in his complaint.

The court ordered the defendant to pay Soco a total amount of P500,000 as and by way of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and to pay the costs of suit.

“Na-vindicated ta, the court ruled in our favor. Para nako it’s a moral victory ni para nako, I am not doing this dili lang para ako lang,” Soco told The Freeman.

Soco filed the civil case for damages on May 24, 2011 against Cebu Pacific Air alleging that by reason of its breach of obligation to transport him, he suffered inconvenience, serious anxiety, physical suffering, and sleepless night.
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-news/2023/07/09/2279797/rtc-opposes-cabs-policy

CEBU CITY – Mandaue City regional trial court has ordered Cebu Pacific Air to pay PHP500,000 in damages to a provincial official who was bumped off from his scheduled flight from Manila to Cebu.

Mandaue City’s RTC Branch 55 Presiding Judge Ferdinand Rafanan ordered Cebu Pacific Air to pay Cebu's (6th District) Provincial Board Member Glenn Soco moral damages of PHP200,000, exemplary damages of PHP200,000, and PHP100,000 attorney’s and litigation expenses.

The order stemmed from a 12-year-old case filed by Soco against the airline for “breach of obligation to transport him,” which he claimed had caused him inconvenience, serious anxiety, physical suffering and sleepless night.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1205331

See, our Laws are not toothless as anyone claims.

I was talking about JAO No. 1 as an administrative instrument as toothless and not Civil, Commercial and Torts and Contract laws that we have...

Of course, the courts are always a recourse... that was already exhibited as early as the Carrosco case vs Air France in 1969... the Philippines, is not a litigious country, and not everyone has the capacity, means, and the endurance to see a civil case through. Perfect example is the Glenn Soco case that took 11 years (CEB even used CAB's own ER to defend itself) for the RTC to decide... which for sure, CEB will appeal all the way to the SC otherwise, it will make them vulnerable to a flood of possible civil cases... This is not like in the U.S. where prolonged lawsuits are settled may be as early as two years... heck even PAL, settled the class action lawsuit filed against them in California for failure to provide refunds, even before trial started...

The industry regulators should be given more teeth... and honestly, should be more stringent in enforcing these guidelines... honestly, the CAB is lackadaisical... they are dependent on airline reports... even in the senate hearing, 5J themselves, admitted to having not followed the APBR in denying check-in and denied boarding procedures. Airlines no longer auction of compensation during overbooking, passengers are either denied check-in, or IDBd even if its not allowed (we have too many stories of that around, latest of which was the lady Naval Officer and triathlete who was denied check-in by PAL for an overbooked flight from Cebu).

Unlike in the U.S. where its easier for passengers to demand compensation from airlines in the event of cancellations or delays. Here, airlines will wear you out until the passenger themselves gives up... and that is where the regulator should come in. The U.S. DOT for example mandates airlines to promptly reimburse passengers (and by promptly it means within 7 days for credit cards). Here, its even taken more than two years for some to get refunds, and it seems the CAB is toothless to assist on this as this is still rampant. Just read all the follow-up on the PAL's post in FB or twitter... or even during the senate hearing.  

I for one filed a complaint before the CAB for the failure of PAL to adhere to the APBR... that complaint took almost a year to close... and what PAL got was not even a slap in the wrist... a Php 5,000 fine which is chump change for them.

[Arianespace]

romantic_guy08 wrote

I for one filed a complaint before the CAB for the failure of PAL to adhere to the APBR... that complaint took almost a year to close... and what PAL got was not even a slap in the wrist... a Php 5,000 fine which is chump change for them.

Well, that was what the Law (RA 776, from 1956) says the fine would be for administrative action against airline in CAB. Here is a previous reiteration of similar circumstances, in 2012:

 

Arianespace wrote

Amidst the Christmas Chaos, Cebu Pacific was fined only P5,000.00. Well, that's what the Law says

Airlines not deterred by current fines -- Abaya
Businessworld

STIFFER PENALTIES are needed against airlines providing substandard service, the Transportation Secretary said, following the series of flight delays and cancellations that marred Cebu Pacific Air’s operations during the holidays.

Department of Transportation and Communications (DoTC) Secretary Joseph Emilio A. Abaya told reporters on the sidelines of an event in Quezon City on Wednesday that the Republic Act (RA) No. 776 or the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines should be amended to allow for harsher penalties on airlines.

Earlier this week, regulators found that the country’s largest budget airline was at fault over the massive disruption of its services before, during and after Christmas day.

“I’m sure congressmen are hearing this. There is a need to amend the law. Definitely P5,000 for a multibillion-peso airline industry is something they’ll laugh at,” Mr. Abaya said.

He was referring to Chapter VII, Section 42B of RA 776, stating that “any air carrier or person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this Act of the terms, conditions, or limitations in a permit or amendment thereto or any orders, rules, or regulations, issued by the Board, shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos for each violation.”

Mr. Abaya said that the P5,000 penalty “is something disproportionate to the inconvenience passengers have experienced.”

On Tuesday, the DoTC said in a statement that Cebu Pacific Air will face penalties due to the “appalling number of delayed flights” and “high absenteeism,” citing an initial report of an investigating panel composed of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, and the Manila International Airport Authority.

Sanctions, according to DoTC Spokesperson Michael Arthur C. Sagcal, could range from a fine to the ultimate penalty of revocation of franchise.

“[There’s this] old Civil Aeronautics Act, which was approved in 1950; Back then P5,000 was a good deterrent, but now it’s not enough,” Mr. Abaya said.

According to data submitted by the airline to the panel last Dec. 29, Cebu Pacific had a total of 20 canceled and 288 delayed flights at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 from Dec. 24 to Dec. 26.

Cebu Pacific Air, its spokesperson Juan Lorenzo T. Tañada said, was due on Jan. 7, to submit a report to the CAB regarding its operations last Dec. 24-26. “The report was required by the CAB panel during the hearing last Dec. 29,” he said.

Unsolicited advice, if you know any of the victims, tell them to sue. You have better chance of winning compensation claims, and make 5J pay up.

In fairness to CAB and ED Carmilo Arcilla, they are just following what the law (RA 776) from 1956 requires them to do. The penalty of 5,000 pesos (US$2,500) per violation is very exorbitant in 1956. Not anymore in today's peso value, and so the abuse.

You are right in saying these needs to change, following EU and US protocols. Surprisingly, this bill was filed in Congress in 2012 and has not moved since, so DOTr did the next best thing, the APBR.

And since APBR is made effective in 2012, it has since penalized CEB ₱52 million out of almost ₱80 million for all PH-based airlines, at this time. The monetary fine isn't enough at today's inflation figures. But CAB hands are tied to what penalty is prescribed.

As to passenger side of things, timely compensation is a different matter altogether. And this is what our Congress refused to give us at this time.

CAB has been knocking on Congress doors since 2012 to do something about this. Calling for a legislation similar to EU Regulation 261, where claim is automatic for every delayed, cancelled, or overbooked flights to the tune of €250, €400, or €600 per person, respectively. And very recently a call was made to update this law and the penalty here:

https://youtu.be/bXMsdAbbeW0?t=5754

https://youtu.be/bXMsdAbbeW0?t=4784

https://youtu.be/bXMsdAbbeW0?t=12258

In other words, if Congress doesn't amend RA 776, you got two choices, APBR and civil claims. That is it.

To cut the story short, if you don't have time to go to court and sue erring airlines, get the APBR. If you have the luxury of time pursue your case for damage claims. It might be a long process which takes years but the wait is well worth it.

I should know. PAL paid us handsomely.

I must admit, a new legislation similar to EC261 is still a better way for airlines to pay up passengers. You only need to prove delay, cancellation, or bumping, which CAB then cross-check to designated airport report files, if true. Then CAB pays you and they collects from the airline. Brilliant. Lets see what version Congress makes.

[romantic_guy08]

Agreed...

We can only hope for stronger consumer protection laws to be legislated...

That's why I am hoping that congress can strengthen the charter of the CAB to give them more wider power and leeway to set guidelines for airlines to follow... similar to the U.S. DOT.

And for CAB to be more proactive in the work they do. I mean, rather than just waiting for the report from airlines or to accept complaints from the public, why can't they deploy personnel to the airports (they said they currently do). But it's as if they are just there for formality and doesn't do anything. They can at least be proactive to monitor flight disruptions and ensure and direct airlines to follow the APBR. Unfortunately, lackadaisical din.

[chowpau]

Arianespace wrote

We already have a laws for that (CA146) since 1936, amended by RA11659, effective April 1, 2023, where AAP is the first beneficiary. Another one is the "Law on Transportation", incorporated in the Civil Code enacted in 1950, and some other commercial laws.

But then, you need a lawyer to file that claim in court. Not in CAB. Most of the time, Airlines settles and give you more than what you want because they always lose. Certainly, that is not slap on the wrist. In fact, it is one reason why Air France left the country. Once any of their plane lands, they would not be flying back because they will be taken by the court.

When was this?