Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 88561. April 20, 1990.
GANGAYCO, J.:
____________
* FIRST DIVISION.
477
____________
478
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Armovit vs. Court of Appeals
______________
4 Exhibits C, D, and F.
5 Pages 34 to 35, Rollo.
479
480
____________
481
_______________
482
13
were assured seats for that flight.
No doubt Atty. Raymund Armovit’s testimony
adequately and sufficiently established the serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and social humiliation that petitioners
suffered upon having been bumped off. However,
considering the circumstances of this case whereby the
private respondent attended to the plight of the petitioners,
taking care of their accommodations while waiting and
boarding them in the flight back to the U.S. the following
day, the Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to
moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each.
By the same token to provide an example for the public
14
good, an award of exemplary damages is also proper. The
award of the appellate court is adequate.
Nevertheless, the deletion of the nominal damages by
the appellate court is well-taken since there is an award of
actual damages. Nominal damages 15
cannot co-exist with
actual or compensatory damages.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
questioned judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby
modified such that private respondent shall pay the
following:
SO ORDERED.
_______________
484
JJ., concur.