9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.

Puno:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.123560.March27,2000]

SPOUSESYUENGCHOandFRANCISCOTAOYU,petitioners,vs.PANAMERICAN
WORLDAIRWAYS,INC.,TOURISTWORLDSERVICES,INC.,JULIETACANILAOand
CLAUDIATAGUNICAR,respondents.

DECISION
PUNO,J.:

Thispetitionforreviewseeksareversalofthe31August1995Decision[1]and11January1998
Resolution[2]oftheCourtofAppealsholdingprivaterespondentClaudiaTagunicarsolelyliablefor
moralandexemplarydamagesandattorneysfees,anddeletingthetrialcourtsawardforactual
damages.

Thefactsasfoundbythetrialcourtareasfollows:Kycalr

"PlaintiffYuEngChoistheownerofYoungHardwareCo.andAchillesMarketing.In
connectionwith[this]business,hetravelsfromtimetotimetoMalaysia,Taipeiand
Hongkong.OnJuly10,1976,plaintiffsboughtplanetickets(Exhs.A&B)from
defendantClaudiaTagunicarwhorepresentedherselftobeanagentofdefendant
TouristWorldServices,Inc.(TWSI).Thedestination[s]areHongkong,Tokyo,San
Francisco,U.S.A.,fortheamountofP25,000.00percomputationofsaiddefendant
ClaudiaTagunicar(Exhs.C&C1).ThepurposeofthistripistogotoFairfield,New
Jersey,U.S.A.tobuytwo(2)linesofinfraredheatingsystemprocessingtexturedplastic
article(Exh.K).

"Onsaiddate,onlythepassagefromManilatoHongkong,thentoTokyo,were
confirmed.[PAA]Flight002fromTokyotoSanFranciscowason"RQ"status,meaning
"onrequest".PerinstructionofdefendantClaudiaTagunicar,plaintiffsreturnedaftera
fewdaysfortheconfirmationoftheTokyoSanFranciscosegmentofthetrip.After
callingupCanilaoofTWSI,defendantTagunicartoldplaintiffsthattheirflightisnow
confirmedalltheway.Thereafter,sheattachedtheconfirmationstickersontheplane
tickets(Exhs.A&B).

"Afewdaysbeforethescheduledflightofplaintiffs,theirson,AdrianYu,calledthePan
Amofficetoverifythestatusoftheflight.AccordingtosaidAdrianYu,apersonnelof
defendantPanAmtoldhimoverthephonethatplaintiffsbooking[s]areconfirmed.

"OnJuly23,1978,plaintiffsleftforHongkongandstayedthereforfive(5)days.They
leftHongkongforTokyoonJuly28,1978.UpontheirarrivalinTokyo,theycalledup
PanAmofficeforreconfirmationoftheirflighttoSanFrancisco.Saidoffice,however,
informedthemthattheirnamesarenotinthemanifest.Sinceplaintiffsweresupposedto
leaveonthe29thofJuly,1978,andcouldnotremaininJapanformorethan72hours,
theywereconstrainedtoagreetoacceptairlineticketsforTaipeiinstead,peradviseof
JALofficials.ThisistheonlyoptionlefttothembecauseNorthwestAirlineswasthenon
strike,hence,therewasnochancefortheplaintiffstoobtainairlineseatstotheUnited
Stateswithin72hours.Plaintiffspaidforthesetickets.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 1/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

"UponreachingTaipei,therewerenoflight[s]availableforplaintiffs,thus,theywere
forcedtoreturnbacktoManilaonAugust3,1978,insteadofproceedingtotheUnited
States.[Japan]AirLines(JAL)refundedtheplaintiffsthedifferenceofthepricefor
TokyoTaipei[and]TokyoSanFrancisco(Exhs.I&J)inthetotalamountofP2,602.00.

"InviewoftheirfailuretoreachFairfield,NewJersey,RadiantHeatEnterprises,Inc.
cancelledYuEngChosoptiontobuythetwolinesofinfraredheatingsystem(Exh.K).
Theagreementwasforhimtoinspecttheequipmentandmakefinalarrangement[s]with
thesaidcompanynotlaterthanAugust7,1978.Fromthisbusinesstransaction,plaintiff
YuEngChoexpectedtorealizeaprofitofP300,000.00toP400,000.00."

"[A]scrutinyofdefendantsrespectiveevidencerevealsthefollowing:

"Plaintiffs,whowereintendingtogototheUnitedStates,werereferredtodefendant
ClaudiaTagunicar,anindependenttravelsolicitor,forthepurchaseoftheirplanetickets.
Assuchtravelsolicitor,shehelpsintheprocessingoftravelpaperslikepassport,plane
tickets,bookingofpassengersandsomeassistanceattheairport.Sheisknownto
defendantsPanAm,TWSI/JulietaCanilao,becauseshehasbeendealingwiththemin
thepastyears.DefendantTagunicaradvisedplaintiffstotakePanAmbecause
NorthwestAirlineswasthenonstrikeandplaintiffsarepassingHongkong,Tokyo,then
SanFranciscoandPanAmhasaflightfromTokyotoSanFrancisco.Afterverifying
fromdefendantTWSI,thruJulietaCanilao,sheinformedplaintiffsthatthefarewouldbe
P25,093.93givingthemadiscountofP738.95(Exhs.C,C1).Plaintiffs,however,gave
heracheckintheamountofP25,000.00onlyforthetworoundtriptickets.Outofthis
transaction,Tagunicarreceiveda7%commissionand1%commissionfordefendant
TWSI.

DefendantClaudiaTagunicarpurchasedthetworoundtripPanAmticketsfrom
defendantJulietaCanilaowiththefollowingschedules:

OriginDestinationAirlineDateTime/Travel

ManilaHongkongCX900723781135/1325hrs

HongkongTokyoCS500728781615/2115hrs

TokyoSanFranciscoPA002729781930/1640hrs

Theuseofanotherairline,likeinthiscaseitisCathayPacificoutofManila,isallowed,
althoughtheticketsissuedarePanAmtickets,aslongasitisinconnectionwithaPan
Amflight.Whenthetwo(2)tickets(Exhs.A&B)wereissuedtoplaintiffs,theletter"RQ"
appearsbelowtheprintedword"status"fortheflightsfromTokyotoSanFrancisco
whichmeans"underrequest,"(Exh.3A,4APanAm).Beforethedateofthescheduled
departure,defendantTagunicarreceivedseveralcallsfromtheplaintiffsinquiringabout
thestatusoftheirbookings.TagunicarinturncalledupTWSI/Canilaotoverifyandif
Canilaowouldanswerthatthebookingsarenotyetconfirmed,shewouldrelatethatto
theplaintiffs.Calrky

"DefendantTagunicarclaimsthatonJuly13,1978,afewdaysbeforethescheduled
flight,plaintiffYuEngChopersonallywenttoheroffice,pressingherabouttheirflight.
ShecalledupdefendantJulietaCanilao,andthelattertoldher"osigeClaudia,confirm
na."Sheevennotedthisinherindexcard(Exh.L),thatitwasJulietawhoconfirmedthe
booking(Exh.L1).Itwasthenthatsheallegedlyattachedtheconfirmationstickers
(Exhs.2,2BTWSI)tothetickets.ThesestickerscamefromTWSI.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 2/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

DefendantTagunicarallegesthatitwasonlyinthefirstweekofAugust,1978thatshe
learnedfromAdrianYu,sonofplaintiffs,thatthelatterwerenotabletotaketheflight
fromTokyotoSanFrancisco,U.S.A.Afterafewdays,saidAdrianYucameoverwitha
gentlemanandalady,whoturnedouttobealawyerandhissecretary.Defendant
Tagunicarclaimsthatplaintiffswereaskingforherhelpsothattheycouldfileanaction
againstPanAm.Becauseofplaintiffspromiseshewillnotbeinvolved,sheagreedto
signtheaffidavit(Exh.M)preparedbythelawyer.Mesm

DefendantsTWSI/CanilaodeniedhavingconfirmedtheTokyoSanFranciscosegment
ofplaintiffsflightbecauseflightsthenwerereallytightbecauseoftheongoingstrikeat
NorthwestAirlines.DefendantClaudiaTagunicarisverymuchawarethat[said]
particularsegmentwasnotconfirmed,becauseontheverydayofplaintiffsdeparture,
TagunicarcalledupTWSIfromtheairportdefendantCanilaoaskedherwhyshe
attachedstickersontheticketswheninfactthatportionoftheflightwasnotyet
confirmed.NeitherTWSInorPanAmconfirmedtheflightandneverauthorized
defendantTagunicartoattachtheconfirmationstickers.Infact,theconfirmationstickers
usedbydefendantTagunicararestickersexclusivelyforuseofPanAmonly.
Furthermore,ifitisthetravelagencythatconfirmsthebooking,theIATAnumberofsaid
agencyshouldappearonthevalidationorconfirmationstickers.TheIATAnumberthat
appearsonthestickersattachedtoplaintiffstickets(Exhs.A&B)is2820770(Exhs.1,
1ATWSI),wheninfactTWSIsIATAnumberis2830770(Exhs.5,5ATWSI)." [3]

AcomplaintfordamageswasfiledbypetitionersagainstprivaterespondentsPanAmericanWorld
Airways,Inc.(PanAm),TouristWorldServices,Inc.(TWSI),JulietaCanilao(Canilao),andClaudia
Tagunicar(Tagunicar)forexpensesallegedlyincurredsuchascostsofticketsandhotel
accommodationswhenpetitionerswerecompelledtostayinHongkongandtheninTokyobyreason
ofthenonconfirmationoftheirbookingwithPanAm.InaDecisiondatedNovember14,1991,the
RegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch3,heldthedefendantsjointlyandseverallyliable,except
defendantJulietaCanilao,thus:Scslx

"WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedfortheplaintiffsandorderingdefendants
PanAmericanWorldAirways,Inc.,TouristWorldServices,Inc.andClaudiaTagunicar,
jointlyandseverally,topayplaintiffsthesumofP200,000.00asactualdamages,minus
P2,602.00alreadyrefundedtotheplaintiffsP200,000.00asmoraldamages
P100,000.00asexemplarydamagesanamountequivalentto20%oftheawardforand
asattorneysfees,plusthesumofP30,000.00aslitigationexpenses.

Defendantscounterclaimsareherebydismissedforlackofmerit.

SOORDERED."

OnlyrespondentsPanAmandTagunicarappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.On11August1995,the
appellatecourtrenderedjudgmentmodifyingtheamountofdamagesawarded,holdingprivate
respondentTagunicarsolelyliabletherefor,andabsolvingrespondentsPanAmandTWSIfromany
andallliability,thus:Slxsc

"PREMISESCONSIDERED,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtisherebySET
ASIDEandanewoneentereddeclaringappellantTagunicarsolelyliablefor:

1)MoraldamagesintheamountofP50,000.00

2)ExemplarydamagesintheamountofP25,000.00and

3)AttorneysfeesintheamountofP10,000.00pluscostsofsuit.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 3/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

TheawardofactualdamagesisherebyDELETED.

SOORDERED."

Insoruling,respondentcourtfoundthatTagunicarisanindependenttravelsolicitorandisnotaduly
authorizedagentorrepresentativeofeitherPanAmorTWSI.Itheldthattheirbusinesstransactions
arenotsufficienttoconsiderPanAmastheprincipal,andTagunicarandTWSIasitsagentandsub
agent,respectively.ItfurtherheldthatTagunicarwasnotauthorizedtoconfirmthebookingsof,nor
issuevalidationstickersto,hereinpetitionersandhence,PanAmandTWSIcannotbeheld
responsibleforheractions.Finally,itdeletedtheawardforactualdamagesforlackofproof.

Hencethispetitionbasedonthefollowingassignmentoferrors:slxmis

1.theCourtofAppeals,inreversingthedecisionofthetrialcourt,misappliedtheruling
inNicosIndustrialCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,et.al.[206SCRA127]and

2.thefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsthatpetitionersticketreservationsinquestion
werenotconfirmedandthatthereisnoagencyrelationshipamongPANAM,TWSIand
TagunicararecontrarytothejudicialadmissionsofPANAM,TWSIandTagunicarand
likewisecontrarytothefindingsoffactofthetrialcourt.

Weaffirm.

I.Thefirstissuedeservesscantconsideration.Petitionerscontendthatcontrarytotherulingofthe
CourtofAppeals,thedecisionofthetrialcourtconformstothestandardsofanidealdecisionsetin
NicosIndustrialCorporation,et.al.vs.CourtofAppeals,et.al.,[4]as"thatwhich,withwelcome
economyofwords,arrivesatthefactualfindings,reachesthelegalconclusions,rendersitsruling
and,havingdoneso,ends."Itisaverredthatthetrialcourtsdecisioncontainsadetailedstatementof
therelevantfactsandevidenceadducedbythepartieswhichthereafterbecamethebasesforthe
courtsconclusions.

Acarefulscrutinyofthedecisionrenderedbythetrialcourtwillshowthatafternarratingtheevidence
oftheparties,itproceededtodisposeofthecasewithaoneparagraphgeneralization,towit:Missdaa

"Onthebasisoftheforegoingfacts,theCourtisconstrainedtoconcludethatdefendant
PanAmistheprincipal,anddefendantsTWSIandTagunicar,itsauthorizedagentand
subagent,respectively.Consequently,defendantsPanAm,TWSIandClaudia
Tagunicarshouldbeheldjointlyandseverallyliabletoplaintiffsfordamages.Defendant
JulietaCanilao,whoactedinherofficialcapacityasOfficeManagerofdefendantTWSI
shouldnotbeheldpersonallyliable."[5]

Thetrialcourtsfindingoffactsisbutasummaryofthetestimoniesofthewitnessesandthe
documentaryevidencepresentedbytheparties.Itdidnotdistinctlyandclearlysetforth,nor
substantiate,thefactualandlegalbasesforholdingrespondentsTWSI,PanAmandTagunicarjointly
andseverallyliable.InDelMundovs.CA,etal.[6]wherethetrialcourt,aftersummarizingthe
conflictingasseverationsoftheparties,disposedofthekernelissueinjusttwo(2)paragraphs,we
held:Sdaadsc

"Itisunderstandablethatcourts,withtheirheavydocketsandtimeconstraints,oftenfind
themselveswithlittletospareinthepreparationofdecisionstotheextentmost
desirable.Wehavethuspointedoutthatjudgesmightlearntosynthesizeandtosimplify
theirpronouncements.Nevertheless,conciselywrittensuchastheymaybe,decisions
muststilldistinctlyandclearlyexpress,atleastinminimumessence,itsfactualandlegal
bases."

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 4/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

Forfailingtoexplainclearlyandwellthefactualandlegalbasesofitsawardofmoraldamages,we
setitasideinsaidcase.Oncemore,westressthatnothinglessthanSection14ofArticleVIIIofthe
Constitutionrequiresthat"nodecisionshallberenderedbyanycourtwithoutexpressingtherein
clearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthelawonwhichitisbased."Thisisdemandedbythedueprocess
clauseoftheConstitution.Inthecaseatbar,thedecisionofthetrialcourtleavesmuchtobedesired
bothinformandsubstance.EvenwhilesaiddecisioninfringestheConstitution,wewillnotbelabor
thisinfirmityandratherexaminethesufficiencyoftheevidencesubmittedbythepetitioners.Rtcspped

II.PetitionersassertthatTagunicarisasubagentofTWSIwhileTWSIisadulyauthorizedticketing
agentofPanAm.Proceedingfromthispremise,theycontendthatTWSIandPanAmshouldbeheld
liableasprincipalsfortheactsofTagunicar.Petitionersstubbornlyinsistthattheexistenceofthe
agencyrelationshiphasbeenestablishedbythejudicialadmissionsallegedlymadebyrespondents
herein,towit:(1)theadmissionmadebyPanAminitsAnswerthatTWSIisitsauthorizedticket
agent(2)theaffidavitexecutedbyTagunicarwheresheadmittedthatsheisadulyauthorizedagent
ofTWSIand(3)theadmissionmadebyCanilaothatTWSIreceivedcommissionsfromticketsales
madebyTagunicar.Korte

Wedonotagree.Bythecontractofagency,apersonbindshimselftorendersomeserviceortodo
somethinginrepresentationoronbehalfofanother,withtheconsentorauthorityofthelatter.[7]The
elementsofagencyare:(1)consent,expressorimplied,ofthepartiestoestablishtherelationship(2)
theobjectistheexecutionofajuridicalactinrelationtoathirdperson(3)theagentactsasa
representativeandnotforhimself(4)theagentactswithinthescopeofhisauthority.[8]Itisasettled
rulethatpersonsdealingwithanassumedagentareboundattheirperil,iftheywouldholdthe
principalliable,toascertainnotonlythefactofagencybutalsothenatureandextentofauthority,and
incaseeitheriscontroverted,theburdenofproofisuponthemtoestablishit.[9]

Inthecaseatbar,petitionersrelyontheaffidavitofrespondentTagunicarwhereshestatedthatshe
isanauthorizedagentofTWSI.Thisaffidavit,however,hasweakprobativevalueinlightof
respondentTagunicarstestimonyincourttothecontrary.Affidavits,beingtakenexparte,arealmost
alwaysincompleteandofteninaccurate,sometimesfrompartialsuggestion,orforwantofsuggestion
andinquiries.Theirinfirmityasaspeciesofevidenceisamatterofjudicialexperienceandarethus
consideredinferiortothetestimonygivenincourt.[10]Further,affidavitsarenotcompletereproductions
ofwhatthedeclaranthasinmindbecausetheyaregenerallypreparedbytheadministeringofficer
andtheaffiantsimplysignsthemafterthesamehavebeenreadtoher.[11]RespondentTagunicar
testifiedthatheraffidavitwaspreparedandtypewrittenbythesecretaryofpetitionerslawyer,Atty.
Acebedo,whobothcamewithAdrianYu,sonofpetitioners,whenthelatterwenttoseeherather
office.ThiswasconfirmedbyAdrianYuwhotestifiedthatAtty.Acebedobroughthisnotarialsealand
notarizedtheaffidavitofthesameday.[12]Thecircumstancesunderwhichsaidaffidavitwasprepared
putindoubtpetitionersclaimthatitwasexecutedvoluntarilybyrespondentTagunicar.Itappearsthat
theaffidavitwaspreparedandwasbasedontheanswerswhichrespondentTagunicargavetothe
questionspropoundedtoherbyAtty.Acebedo.[13]Theynevertoldherthattheaffidavitwouldbeused
inacasetobefiledagainsther.[14]Theyevenassuredherthatshewouldnotbeincludedas
defendantifsheagreedtoexecutetheaffidavit.[15]RespondentTagunicarwasprevaileduponby
petitionerssonandtheirlawyertosigntheaffidavitdespiteherobjectiontothestatementthereinthat
shewasanagentofTWSI.Theyassuredherthat"itisimmaterial"[16]andthat"ifwefileasuitagainst
youwecannotgetanythingfromyou."[17]ThispurportedadmissionofrespondentTagunicarcannot
beusedbypetitionerstoprovetheiragencyrelationship.Atanyrate,evenifsuchaffidavitistobe
givenanyprobativevalue,theexistenceoftheagencyrelationshipcannotbeestablishedonitssole
basis.Thedeclarationsoftheagentalonearegenerallyinsufficienttoestablishthefactorextentof
hisauthority.[18]Inaddition,asbetweenthenegativeallegationofrespondentsCanilaoandTagunicar
thatneitherisanagentnorprincipaloftheother,andtheaffirmativeallegationofpetitionersthatan
agencyrelationshipexists,itisthelatterwhohavetheburdenofevidencetoprovetheirallegation,[19]
failinginwhich,theirclaimmustnecessarilyfail.Sclaw
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 5/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

WestressthatrespondentTagunicarcategoricallydeniedinopencourtthatsheisadulyauthorized
agentofTWSI,anddeclaredthatsheisanindependenttravelagent.[20]Wehaveconsistentlyruled
thatincaseofconflictbetweenstatementsintheaffidavitandtestimonialdeclarations,thelatter
commandgreaterweight.[21]

Asfurtherproofsofagency,petitionerscallourattentiontoTWSIsExhibits"7","7A",and"8"which
showthatTagunicarandTWSIreceivedsalescommissionsfromPanAm.Exhibit"7"[22]istheTicket
SalesReportsubmittedbyTWSItoPanAmreflectingthecommissionsreceivedbyTWSIasanagent
ofPanAm.Exhibit"7A"[23]isalistingoftheroutestakenbypassengerswhowereauditedtoTWSIs
salesreport.Exhibit"8"[24]isareceiptissuedbyTWSIcoveringthepaymentmadebyTagunicarfor
theticketssheboughtfromTWSI.ThesedocumentscannotjustifythedeductionthatTagunicarwas
paidacommissioneitherbyTWSIorPanAm.Onthecontrary,Tagunicartestifiedthatwhenshepays
TWSI,shealreadydeductsinadvancehercommissionandmerelygivesthenetamounttoTWSI.[25]
Fromallsidesofthelegalprism,thetransactionissimplyacontractofsalewhereinTagunicarbuys
airlineticketsfromTWSIandthensellsitatapremiumtoherclients.Sclex

III.PetitionersincludedrespondentPanAminthecomplaintonthesuppositionthatsinceTWSIisits
dulyauthorizedagent,andrespondentTagunicarisanagentofTWSI,thenPanAmshouldalsobe
heldresponsiblefortheactsofrespondentTagunicar.Ourdisquisitionsaboveshowthatthis
contentionlacksfactualandlegalbases.Indeed,thereisnothingintherecordstoshowthat
respondentTagunicarhasbeenemployedbyPanAmasitsagent,exceptthebareallegationof
petitioners.TherealmotiveofpetitionersinsuingPanAmappearsinitsAmendedComplaintthat"
[d]efendantsTWSI,CanilaoandTagunicarmaynotbefinanciallycapableofpayingplaintiffsthe
amountshereinsoughttoberecovered,andinsuchevent,defendantPanAm,beingtheirultimate
principal,isprimarilyand/orsubsidiarilyliabletopaysaidamountstoplaintiffs."[26]Thislends
credencetorespondentTagunicarstestimonythatshewaspersuadedtoexecuteanaffidavit
implicatingrespondentsbecausepetitionersknewtheywouldnotbeabletogetanythingofvalue
fromher.Inthepast,wehavewarnedthatthisCourtwillnottolerateanabuseofthejudicialprocess
bypassengersinordertopryoninternationalairlinesfordamageawards,like"trophiesinasafari."[27]

ThismeritlesssuitagainstPanAmbecomesmoreglaringwithpetitionersinactionaftertheywere
bumpedoffinTokyo.IfpetitionerswereofthehonestbeliefthatPanAmwasresponsibleforthe
misfortunewhichbesetthem,thereisnoevidencetoshowthattheylodgedaprotestwithPanAms
TokyoofficeimmediatelyaftertheywererefusedpassagefortheflighttoSanFrancisco,orevenupon
theirarrivalinManila.ThetestimonyofpetitionerYuEngChointhisregardisoflittlevalue,viz.:

"Atty.Jalandoni:xxx

qUponarrivalattheTokyoairport,whatdidyoudoifanyinconnectionwithyour
schedule[d]trip?

aIwenttotheHotel,HolidayInnandfromthereIimmediatelycalledupPanAmoffice
inTokyotoreconfirmmyflight,buttheytoldmethatournameswerenotlistedinthe
manifest,sonextmorning,veryearlyinthemorningIwenttotheairport,PanAmoffice
intheairporttoverifyandtheytoldmethesameandwewerenotallowedtoleave.

qYouwerescheduledtobeinTokyoforhowlongMr.Yu?

aWehavetoleavethenextday29th.

qInotherwords,whatwasyourstatusasapassenger?

aTransientpassengers.Wecannotstaythereformorethan72hours.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 6/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

xxxxxxxxx

qAsaconsequenceofthefactthatyouclaimedthatthePanAmofficeinTokyotoldyou
thatyournameswerenotinthemanifest,whatdidyoudo,ifany?

aIask[ed]themifIcangoanywhereintheStates?TheytoldmeIcangotoLAvia
JapanAirlinesandIacceptedit.

qDoyouhavetheticketswithyouthattheyissuedforLosAngeles?

aItwastakenbytheJapaneseAirlinesinsteadtheyissue[d]meatickettoTaipei.

xxxxxxxxx

qWereyouabletotakethetriptoLosAngelesviaPanAmticketsthatwasissuedto
youinlieuoftheticketstoSanFrancisco?

aNo,sir.

qWhynot?

aTheJapaneseAirlinessaidthattherewerenomoreavailableseats.

qAndasaconsequenceofthat,whatdidyoudo,ifany?

aIamsomuchscaredandworried,sotheJapaneseAirlinesadvisedustogoto
TaipeiandIacceptedit.

xxxxxxxxx

qWhydidyouaccepttheJapanAirlinesofferforyoutogotoTaipei?

aBecausethereisnochanceforustogototheUnitedStateswithin72hoursbecause
duringthattimeNorthwestAirlines[was]onstrikesotheseatsareveryscarce.Sothey
advisedmebetterleft(sic)beforethe72hoursotherwiseyouwillhavetroublewiththe
Japaneseimmigration.

qAsaconsequenceofthatyouwereforce[d]totakethetriptoTaipei?

aYes,sir."[28](emphasissupplied)

Itgrindsagainstthegrainofhumanexperiencethatpetitionersdidnotinsistthattheybeallowedto
board,consideringthatitwasthendoublydifficulttogetseatsbecauseoftheongoingNorthwest
Airlinesstrike.ItisalsoperplexingthatpetitionersreadilyacceptedwhatevertheTokyoofficehadto
offerasanalternative.Inexplicablytoo,nodemandletterwassenttorespondentsTWSIandCanilao.
[29]
NorwasademandlettersenttorespondentPanAm.Tosaytheleast,themotiveofpetitionersin
suingPanAmissuspect.xlaw

WehastentoaddthatitisnotsufficienttoprovethatPanAmdidnotallowpetitionerstoboardto
justifypetitionersclaimfordamages.Mererefusaltoaccedetothepassengerswishesdoesnot
necessarilytranslateintodamagesintheabsenceofbadfaith.[30]Thesettledruleisthatthelaw
presumesgoodfaithsuchthatanypersonwhoseekstobeawardeddamagesduetoactsofanother
hastheburdenofprovingthatthelatteractedinbadfaithorwithillmotive.[31]Inthecaseatbar,we
findtheevidencepresentedbypetitionersinsufficienttoovercomethepresumptionofgoodfaith.
Theyhavefailedtoshowanywanton,malevolentorrecklessmisconductimputabletorespondent

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 7/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

PanAminitsrefusaltoaccommodatepetitionersinitsTokyoSanFranciscoflight.PanAmcouldnot
haveactedinbadfaithbecausepetitionersdidnothaveconfirmedticketsandmoreimportantly,they
werenotinthepassengermanifest.Sc

Innotafewcases,thisCourtdidnothesitabletoholdanairlineliablefordamagesforhavingactedin
badfaithinrefusingtoaccommodateapassengerwhohadaconfirmedticketandwhosename
appearedinthepassengermanifest.InOrtigasJr.v.LufthansaGermanAirlinesInc.[32]weruledthat
therewasavalidandbindingcontractbetweentheairlineanditspassengerafterfindingthat
validatingstickeronthepassengerstickethadtheletters"O.K."appearingintheRes.Statusbox
whichmeans"spaceconfirmed"andthattheticketisconfirmedorvalidated.InPanAmericanWorld
AirwaysInc.v.IAC,etal.[33]whereawouldbepassengerhadthenecessaryticket,baggageclaim
andclearancefromimmigrationallclearlyshowingthatshewasaconfirmedpassengerandincluded
inthepassengermanifestandyetwasdeniedaccommodationinsaidflight,weawardeddamages.In
Armovit,etal.v.CA,etal.,[34]weupheldtheawardofdamagesmadeagainstanairlineforgross
negligencecommittedintheissuanceofticketswitherroneousentriesastothetimeofflight.In
AlitaliaAirwaysv.CA,etal.,[35]weheldthatwhenairlineissuesatickettoapassengerconfirmedona
particularflight,onacertaindate,acontractofcarriagearises,andthepassengerhaseveryrightto
expectthathewouldflyonthatflightandonthatdate.Ifhedoesnot,thenthecarrieropensitselftoa
suitforbreachofcontractofcarriage.Andfinally,anawardofdamageswasheldproperinthecaseof
Zalamea,etal.v.CA,etal.,[36]whereaconfirmedpassengerincludedinthemanifestwasdenied
accommodationinsuchflight.Scmis

Ontheotherhand,therespondentairlineinSarreal,Sr.v.JapanAirlinesCo.,Ltd.,[37]washeldnot
liablefordamageswherethepassengerwasnotallowedtoboardtheplanebecausehistickethad
notbeenconfirmed.Weruledthat"[t]hestubthattheladyemployeeputonthepetitionersticket
showedamongothercodeditems,underthecolumn"status"theletters"RQ"whichwasunderstood
tomean"Request."Clearly,thisdoesnotmeanaconfirmationbutonlyarequest.JALTraffic
Supervisorexplainedthatitwouldhavebeendifferentifwhatwaswrittenonthestubweretheletter
"ok"inwhichcasethepetitionerwouldhavebeenassuredofaseatonsaidflight.Butinthiscase,the
petitionerwasmoreofawaitlistedpassengerthanaregularlybookedpassenger."Missc

Inthecaseatbar,petitionersticketwereon"RQ"status.Theywerenotconfirmedpassengersand
theirnameswerenotlistedinthepassengermanifest.Inotherwords,thisisnotacasewherePan
Ambounditselftotransportpetitionersandthereafterrenegedonitsobligation.Hence,respondent
airlinecannotbeheldliablefordamages.Misspped

IV.WeholdthatrespondentCourtofAppealscorrectlyruledthattheticketswereneverconfirmedfor
goodreasons:(1)ThepersistentcallsmadebyrespondentTagunicartoCanilao,andthosemadeby
petitionersattheManila,HongkongandTokyoofficesofPanAm,areeloquentindicationsthat
petitionersknewthattheirticketshavenotbeenconfirmed.For,ascorrectlyobservedbyPanAm,
whywouldonecontinuallytrytohaveonesticketconfirmedifithadalreadybeenconfirmed?(2)The
validationstickerswhichrespondentTagunicarattachedtopetitionersticketswerethoseintendedfor
theexclusiveuseofairlinecompanies.Shehadnoauthoritytousethem.Hence,saidvalidation
stickers,whereintheword"OK"appearsinthestatusbox,arenotvalidandbinding.(3)Thenamesof
petitionersdonotappearinthepassengermanifest.(4)RespondentTagunicars"Exhibit1"[38]shows
thatthestatusoftheSanFranciscoNewYorksegmentwas"Ok",meaningitwasconfirmed,butthat
thestatusoftheTokyoSanFranciscosegmentwasstill"onrequest".(5)RespondentCanilaotestified
thatonthedaythatpetitionersweretodepartforHongkong,respondentTagunicarcalledherfromthe
airportaskingforconfirmationoftheTokyoSanFranciscoflight,andthatwhenshetoldrespondent
Tagunicarthatsheshouldnothaveallowedpetitionerstoleavebecausetheirticketshavenotbeen
confirmed,respondentTagunicarmerelysaid"Bahalana."[39]Thiswasnevercontrovertednorrefuted
byrespondentTagunicar.(6)Toprovethatitreallydidnotconfirmthebookingsofpetitioners,
respondentCanilaopointedoutthatthevalidationstickerswhichrespondentTagunicarattachedto

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 8/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision

theticketsofpetitionershadIATANo.2820770stampedonit,whereastheIATAnumberofTWSIis
2830770.[40]

Undoubtedly,respondentTagunicarshouldbeliableforhavingactedinbadfaithinmisrepresentingto
petitionersthattheirticketshavebeenconfirmed.Herculpability,however,wasproperlymitigated.
PetitionerYuEngChotestifiedthatherepeatedlytriedtofollowupontheconfirmationoftheirtickets
withPanAmbecausehedoubtedtheconfirmationmadebyrespondentTagunicar.[41]Thisisclear
proofthatpetitionersknewthattheymightbebumpedoffatTokyowhentheydecidedtoproceedwith
thetrip.Awareofthisrisk,petitionersexertedeffortstoconfirmtheirticketsinManila,thenin
Hongkong,andfinallyinTokyo.Resultantly,wefindthemodificationastotheamountofdamages
awardedjustandequitableunderthecircumstances.Spped

WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyAFFIRMED.Costagainstpetitioners.Jospped

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Kapunan,andPardo,JJ.,concur.

YnaresSantiago,J.,nopart.

[1] PennedbyAssociateJusticeAntonioM.Martinez,withConsueloYnaresSantiagoandRubenT.Reyes,JJ.,concurringRollo,
3549.
[2] Ibid.,51.
[3] OriginalRecords,647650.
[4] 206SCRA127(1992).
[5] OriginalRecord,650.
[6] 240SCRA348(1995).
[7] NewCivilCode,Article1868.
[8] Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhils.,Vol.V,1992ed.,p.396.
[9] BAFinancev.CA,etal.,211SCRA112(1992).
[10] Peoplev.Diaz,262SCRA723(1996).
[11] Peoplev.Gondora,265SCRA408(1996).
[12] TSN,December16,1982,pp.1719.
[13] TSN,September29,1983,pp.1213.
[14] TSN,December16,1982,p.17.
[15] TSN,September29,1983,pp.1617.
[16] TSN,July22,1983,p.43.
[17] Ibid.,p.38.
[18] Reuschlein&Gregory,TheLawofAgencyandPartnership,1990,Seconded.,p.28BAFinancev.CA,etal.,211SCRA112
(1992).
[19] Martinezv.NLRC,etal.,272SCRA793(1997).
[20] TSN,July22,1983,p.44August12,1983,pp.67.
[21] Peoplev.Aliposa,263SCRA471(1996).
[22] OriginalRecords,p.448.
[23] Ibid.,449.
[24] Ibid.,450.
[25] TSN,July22,1983,p.50.
[26] OriginalRecords,p.46.
[27] AlitaliaAirwaysvs.CA,etal.,187SCRA763(1990).
[28] TSN,August20,1981,pp.1828.
[29] TSN,November23,1983,p.35.
[30] AirFrancev.CA,etal.,171SCRA399(1989).
[31] FordPhils.,Inc.v.CA,etal.,267SCRA320(1997).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 9/10
9/19/2016 ChovsPanAmericanWorldAirwaysInc:123560:March27,2000:J.Puno:FirstDivision
[32] 64SCRA610(1975).
[33] 153SCRA521(1987).
[34] 184SCRA476(1990).
[35] 187SCRA763(1990).
[36] 228SCRA23(1993).
[37] 207SCRA359(1992).
[38] OriginalRecords,p.292.
[39] TSN,November23,1983,pp.2931.
[40] Ibid.,p.14.
[41] TSN,August27,1981,p.42.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/123560.html 10/10