Scribd
Upload
73 views2 pages

Northwest Airlines Vs Chiong

1) Steven Chiong was hired as a third engineer on a ship but his flight from Manila to San Diego was cancelled by Northwest Airlines. 2) At the Manila airport, Northwest personnel told Chiong his name was not on the passenger list and he was not allowed to board. 3) Northwest claimed Chiong was a "no-show" passenger but could not present the personnel who handled his ticket or prepared the passenger manifest to testify. 4) The court ruled Northwest needed to present the witnesses who could prove Chiong did not check in since the manifest and records alone were hearsay evidence without testimony from those who made the entries.

Uploaded by

Jessette Amihope CASTOR
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views2 pages

Northwest Airlines Vs Chiong

1) Steven Chiong was hired as a third engineer on a ship but his flight from Manila to San Diego was cancelled by Northwest Airlines. 2) At the Manila airport, Northwest personnel told Chiong his name was not on the passenger list and he was not allowed to board. 3) Northwest claimed Chiong was a "no-show" passenger but could not present the personnel who handled his ticket or prepared the passenger manifest to testify. 4) The court ruled Northwest needed to present the witnesses who could prove Chiong did not check in since the manifest and records alone were hearsay evidence without testimony from those who made the entries.

Uploaded by

Jessette Amihope CASTOR
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. STEVEN P.

CHIONG
Respondent. G.R. No. 155550; January 31, 2008

FACTS:
On March 14, 1989, Philimare Shipping and Seagull Maritime Corporation
(Philimare), as the authorized Philippine agent of TransOcean Lines (TransOcean),
hired respondent Steven Chiong as Third Engineer of TransOcean's vessel M/V Elbia at
the San Diego, California Port. For this purpose, Philimare purchased for Chiong a
Northwest plane ticket for San Diego, California with a departure date of April 1, 1989
from Manila. On April 1, 1989, Chiong arrived at the Manila International Airport, at
about 6:30 a.m., three hours before the scheduled time of departure. Marilyn Calvo,
Philimare's Liaison Officer, met and the two proceeded to the Philippine Coast Guard
Counter to present Chiong's seaman service record book for clearance. Thereafter,
Chiong proceeded to queue at the Northwest check-in counter. When it was Chiong's
turn, the Northwest personnel informed him that his name did not appear in the
computer's list of confirmed departing passengers. Chiong was then directed to speak
to a "man in barong" standing outside Northwest's counters from whom Chiong could
allegedly obtain a boarding pass. Posthaste, Chiong approached the "man in barong"
who demanded US$100.00 in exchange therefor. Without the said amount, and anxious
to board the plane, Chiong queued a number of times at Northwest's Check-in Counter
and presented his ticket. However, the Northwest personnel at the counter told him to
simply wait and that he was being a pest. Ultimately, Chiong was not allowed to board
Northwest Flight No. 24 bound for San Diego that day and, consequently, was unable
to work at the M/V Elbia by April 1, 1989 (California, U.S.A. time). It appears that
Chiong's name was crossed out and substituted with "W. Costine" in Northwest's Air
Passenger Manifest. Chiong filed a Complaint for breach of contract of carriage before
the RTC. Northwest contradicted the claim reiterating that Chiong had no cause of
action against it because per its records, Chiong was a "no-show" passenger for
Northwest Flight No. 24 on April 1, 1989. The documentary and testimonial evidence,
taken together establish the fact that Chiong was present at MIA on April 1, 1989. In
contrast Northwest's bare-faced claim that Chiong was a "no-show" passenger, and was
scheduled to leave the country only on April 17, 1989. Northwest, despite the
declaration in its Pre-Trial Brief, did not present as a witness their check-in agent on
that contentious date. 24 This omission was detrimental to Northwest's case considering
its claim that Chiong did not check-in at their counters on said date. It simply insisted
that Chiong was a "no-show" passenger and totally relied on the Flight Manifest, which,
curiously, showed a horizontal line drawn across Chiong's name, and the name W.
Costine written above it. The reason for the insertion, or for Chiong's allegedly being a
"no-show" passenger, is not even recorded on the remarks column of the Flight
Manifest beside the Passenger Name column. Thus, we are perplexed why, despite the
evidence presented by Chiong, and the RTC's specific order to Northwest's counsel to
present the person(s) who prepared the Flight Manifest and Passenger Name Record for
a proper identification of, and to testify on, those documents, Northwest still insisted on
presenting Gonofredo Mendoza and Amelia Meris who were, admittedly, not
competent to testify thereon

ISSUE:
Whether there is a need for Northwest to present those persons who can testify
and prove that Chiong is a no-show passenger on April 1?

HELD:
No. As a rule, "entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they
refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries
in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty". (Rule 130, Section 43, Revised Rules of Court)
Otherwise stated, in order to be admissible as entries in the course of business, it is
necessary that: (a) the person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify; (b)
the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer; (c) the
entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; (d) the entries were
made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty; and (e) the entries
were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. Tested by these
requirements, we find the manifest and passenger name record to be mere hearsay
evidence. While there is no necessity to bring into court all the employees who
individually made the entries, it is sufficient that the person who supervised them while
they were making the entries testify that the account was prepared under his
supervision and that the entries were regularly entered in the ordinary course of
business. In the case at bench, while MENDOZA was the supervisor on-duty on April 1,
1989, he has no personal knowledge of the entries in the manifest since he did not
supervise the preparation thereof. More importantly, no evidence was presented to
prove that the employee who made the entries was dead nor did the defendant-
appellant set forth the circumstances that would show the employee's inability to
testify. Hence, the SC denied the petition and uphold the RTC and CA decision in
favour of Chiong.

You might also like