Japan Airlines v Asuncion | Ynares-Santiago | 2005 FACTS:
Michael and Jeannette Asuncion (respondents) left Manila on board JAL bound for Los Angeles heir itinerar! included a stopo"er in #arita and an o"ernight sta! at $otel #i%%o #arita thus the need for a shore pass& 'hich is reuired of a foreigner 'ho desires to sta! in the neighborhood of the port of call pon arri"al& an e*plo!ee of JAL endorsed the +espondents, applications applications for shore pass to the Japanese **igration .fficial/ .fficial/ $o'e"er& +espondents, application 'as denied because Michael appeared to be shorter than his height as indicated in his passport/ And so the! 'ere brought instead to the #arita Airport +est $ouse and 'ere charged 100 each for their acco**odation
Respondents filed a complaint for damages claiming that o o
o
JAL did not full! apprise the* of their tra"el reuire*ents reuire*ents JAL did not ehaust all *eans to pre"ent the denial of their shore pass entr! applications applications he! 'ere rudel! and forcibl! detained at #arita
JAL contends that the refusal of the immigration official is an act of state which JAL cannot interfere with or prevail upon TC and CA ruled in fa"or of the +espondents ISSU: 3o# JAL is guilt! of breach of contract !CISI"#: #"
A contract of carriage includes the dut! of JAL to inspect 'hether its passengers ha"e the necessar! tra"el tra"el docu*ents/ docu*ents/ $.344+& this dut$ does not e%tend to chec&ing the veracit$ of ever$ entr$
his is because the po'er to ad*it or not an alien into the countr! is a so"ereign act& 'hich cannot be interfered 'ith e"en b! JAL/ AS S6$& JAL cannot "ouch for the authenticit! of a passport and correctness of the entries therein R: JAL's failure to apprise the Respondents( it *ust be noted that +espondents& +espondents& prior to their departure 'ere a'are of the need to secure shore pass entries for their o"ernight sta! at $otel #i%%o
R: failure of JAL to e%haust all means( as *entioned& JAL has no
authorit! to interfere 'ith or influence the i**igration officials/ he *ost that it could do is to endorse the +espondents, applications& applications& 'hich JAL i**ediatel! did upon arri"al of +espondents/ # 7A6& JAL did all it could to assist the* (*a%ing reser"ations reser"ations at the +est $ouse) R: allegations of improper )ehavior& it *ust be noted that Michael,s Michael,s testi*on! did not categoricall! categoricall! state those allegations R: claim for damages& since there is no breach of contract nor proof that JAL acted fraudulentl!& fraudulentl!& there is no basis for the a'ard of an! da*ages (acco**odation fee)& it 'as pro"en R: claim for reim)ursement (acco**odation that the a*ount did not accrue to the benefit of JAL
