Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
-versus-
Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
DECISION
1. Yes, Ms. Tahimik was entitled to the first class seat. Defendant company
seems to capitalize on the argument that the issuance of a first-class ticket was
no guarantee that the passenger to whom the same had been issued, would be
accommodated in the first-class compartment, for as in the case of plaintiff she
had yet to make arrangements upon arrival at every station for the necessary
first-class reservation. We are not impressed by such a reasoning. We cannot
understand how a reputable firm like defendant airplane company could have
the indiscretion to give out tickets it never meant to honor at all. It received the
corresponding amount in payment of first-class tickets and yet it allowed the
passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the
ordinary course of business that the company should know whether or not the
tickets it issues are to be honored or not. Apart from the testimonies of plaintiff
and her witness, the testimony of the ticketing agent of defendant company also
confirmed plaintiff’s right to the first class seat. Defendant comoany tried to
prove by the testimony of its witnesses Lucky Lakwachero and Jenny Jetsetter
that although plaintiff paid for, and was issued a "first class" airplane ticket, the
ticket was subject to confirmation. The court cannot give credit to the testimony
of said witnesses. Oral evidence cannot prevail over written evidence, and
plaintiff's Exhibits belie the testimony of said witnesses, and clearly show that
the plaintiff was issued, and paid for, a first class ticket without any reservation
whatever.
2. Since the plaintiff was entitled to the first class seat, actual damages must be
awarded to her. Indeed, basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the
amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven
with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best
evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof (Lufthansa German Airlines
v. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 600 (1995)). The claimant is duty-bound to
point out specific facts that afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory
damages are borne (Southeastern College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
No. 126389, July 10, 1998). A court cannot merely rely on speculations,
conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages (Development
Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Lydia Cuba, G.R. No. 118367,
January 5, 1998) as well as hearsay (People v. Gutierrez 258 SCRA 70 (1996))
or uncorroborated testimony whose truth is suspect (Baliwag Transit, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 746 (1996)). In the given case, it was clearly
shown through the testimonies of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s witness, Irene K.
Nakita and the ticketing agent of defendant company, Tickie T. Tikitera and
pieces of evidence that were presented that indeed plaintiff suffered a loss of
P25,000 representing the difference between the price of an economy class
ticket from Manila to Rome from the price of a first class ticket plying the same
route.
4. Yes, plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages. The Civil Code gives the
court ample power to grant exemplary damages — in contracts and quasi-
contracts. The only condition is that defendant should have "acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner” (Article 2232, Civil
Code). The manner of ejectment of the plaintiff from her first class seat fits into
this legal precept. And this, in addition to moral damages (Article 2229, Civil
Code). Therefore, the Court awards the plaintiff P50,000 in exemplary
damages.
5. Given the presence of bad faith as aptly explained above, the right to
attorney's fees has been fully established. The grant of exemplary damages
justifies a similar judgment for attorneys' fees. The least that can be said is that
the courts below felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys' fees be given
(Article 2208, (1) and (11), Civil Code). The general rule is that attorney’s fees
cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium
should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time
a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article
2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant
is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of
bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an
erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause (ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 528, 529 (1999)). The
award of attorney’s fees to the winning party lies within the discretion of the
court, taking into account the circumstances of each case. This means that such
an award should have factual, legal, and equitable basis, not founded on pure
speculation and conjecture. In addition, the court should state the reason for the
award of attorney’s fees in the body of the decision. Its unheralded appearance
in the dispositive portion, as a rule, is not allowed (Alcatel Philippines, Inc. v.
I.M. Bongar & Co., Inc., G.R. No. 182946, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 741,
744). Therefore, plaintiff is awarded P50,000 in attorney’s fees.