Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DECISION
In their Answer,13 China Southern Airlines denied liability
PEREZ, J.: by alleging that petitioners were not confirmed passengers
of the airlines but were merely chance passengers.
According to the airlines, it was specifically provided in the
For resolution of the Court is this Petition for Review issued tickets that petitioners are required to re-confirm
on Certiorari1 filed by petitioners Alfredo S. Ramos, all their bookings at least 72 hours before their scheduled
Conchita S. Ramos, Benjamin B. Ramos, Nelson T. Ramos time of departures but they failed to do so which resulted
and Robinson T. Ramos, seeking to reverse and set aside in the automatic cancellation of their bookings.
the Decision2 dated 19 March 2013 and Resolution3 dated
9 July 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. The RTC then proceeded with the reception of evidence
No. 94561. The assailed decision and resolution affirmed after the pre-trial conference.
with modification the 23 March 2009 Decision4 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 36, which On 23 March 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision14 in favor
ordered respondent China Southern Airlines to pay of the petitioners and ordered Chkia Southern Airlines to
petitioners the amount of P692,000.00, representing the pay damages in the amount of P692,000.00, broken down
amount of damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the as follows: ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
appellate court affirmed the award of actual damages but "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
deleted the order for payment of moral and exemplary defendant [China Southern Airlines] to pay [petitioners]:
damages in the amount of P600,000.00.5 chanrob leslaw
Since China Southern, Airlines' refusal to let petitioners expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If
board the plane was not attended by bad faith, the that does not happen, then the carrier opens itself to a
appellate court decided not to award petitioners moral and suit for breach of contract of carriage.24 In an action based
exemplary damages. The CA disposed in this wise: ChanRob les Virtualawl ibra ry on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is does not have to prove that the common carrier was at
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the fault or was negligent.25 All he has to prove is the
cralaw red
award of moral and exemplary damages are existence of the contract and the fact of its non-
hereby DELETED."18 chanroblesv irtuallaw lib rary performance by the carrier, through the latter's failure to
carry the passenger to its destination.26
Dissatisfied, petitioners timely interposed a Motion for
chan robles law
Unflinching, petitioners elevated the matter before the Court. The petitioners were issued two-way tickets with
Court by filing the instant Petition for Review itineraries indicating the date and time of their return
on Certiorari assailing the CA Decision and Resolution on flight to Manila. These are binding contracts of
the following grounds: ChanRo bles Vi rtua lawlib rary carriage.27China Southern Airlines allowed petitioners to
The Issues check in their luggage and issued the necessary claim
stubs showing that they were part of the flight. It was
I. only after petitioners went through all the required check-
in procedures that they were informed by the airlines that
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND they were merely chance passengers. Airlines companies
SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT DELETED THE AWARDS OF do not, as a practice, accept pieces of luggage from
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, A DEPARTURE FROM passengers without confirmed reservations. Quite
ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES THAT PASSENGERS WHO ARE tellingly, all the foregoing circumstances lead us to the
BUMPED-OFF ARE ENTITLED TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY inevitable conclusion that petitioners indeed were bumped
DAMAGES; off from the flight. We cannot from the records of this
case deduce the true reason why the airlines refused to
I. board petitioners back to Manila. What we can be sure of
is the unacceptability of the proffered reason that
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND rightfully gives rise to the claim for damages.
SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT DECLARED THAT BUMPING OFF
OF THE PETITIONERS WAS NOT ATTENDED BY BAD FAITH The prologue shapes the body of the petitioners' rights,
AND MALICE CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE that is, that they are entitled to damages, actual, moral
LOWER COURT; and exemplary.
The Court's Ruling the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-
performance by China Southern Airlines; the concurrence
We resolve to grant the petition. of these elements called for the imposition of actual or
compensatory damages.
A contract of carriage, in this case, air transport, is
intended to serve the traveling public and thus, imbued With respect to moral damages, the following provision of
with public interest.22 The law governing common carriers the New Civil Code is instructive: ChanRoble sVirt ualawli bra ry
consequently imposes an exacting standard of Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal
conduct,23viz: ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
of a series of involuntary downgrades of their trip from On 25 October 1993, respondents queued in front of the
Manila to Sydney via Hong Kong on 25 October 1993 and First Class counter in the airport. 22 They were issued
from Hong Kong to Manila on 2 November 1993.5 In its boarding passes for Business Class seats on board CX 902
Answer,6 petitioner maintained that respondents had bound for Hong Kong from Manila and Economy Class
flown on the sections and sectors they had booked and seats on board CX 101 bound for Sydney from Hong
confirmed. Kong.23 They only discovered that they had not been
given First Class seats when they were denied entry into
The RTC ruled in favor of respondents and awarded P5 the First Class lounge.24Respondent Fuentebella went back
million as moral damages, PI million as exemplary to the check-in counter to demand that they be given First
damages, and P500,000 as attorney's fees. Upon review, Class seats or at the very least, access to the First Class
the CA upheld the disposition and the awards, with the Lounge. He recalled that he was treated by the ground
modification that the attorney's fees be reduced to staff in a discourteous, arrogant and rude manner.25 He
P100,000.
cralawred
staff.32
chanroble slaw
[T]he court was able to keenly observe [the] demeanor
[of respondents' witnesses] on the witness stand and they
Respondents alleged that during transit through the Hong appear to be frank, spontaneous, positive and forthright
Kong airport on 25 October 1993, they were treated with neither destroyed nor rebutted in the course of the entire
far less respect and courtesy by the ground staff.33 In trial...The court cannot state the same observation in
fact, the first employee they approached completely regard to those witnesses who testified by way of
ignored them and turned her back on them.34 The second deposition [namely, Cong. Lopez all the witnesses of
one did not even give them any opportunity to explain petitioner], except those appearing in the transcript of
why they should be given First Class seats, but instead records. And on record, it appears [that] witness Nenita
brushed aside their complaints and told them to just fall in Montillana was reading a note.52 chan robles law
Respondents were able to travel First Class for their trip With regard to the question of whether respondents had
from Sydney to Hong Kong on 30 October confirmed their booking, the CA considered petitioner's
1993. 46 However, on the last segment of the itinerary acceptance of the fare difference and the issuance of the
from Hong Kong to Manila on 2 November 1993, they First Class tickets as proof that the request for upgrade
were issued boarding passes for Business Class.47 chanrob leslaw
had been approved.59 It noted that the tickets bore the
annotation that reconfirmation of flights is no longer
Upon arrival in the Philippines, respondents demanded a necessary, further strengthening the fact of
formal apology and payment of damages from confirmation.60 chanro bles law
ney
The award of exemplary damages was sustained to deter
a similar shabby treatment of passengers and a wanton Syd CX C OK O F - First
and reckless refusal to honor First Class tickets. 66 The ney 10 PE
award for attorney's fees was likewise sustained pursuant
to Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code which allows recovery
- 0 N
thereof when an act or omission of the defendant Hon
compelled the plaintiff to litigate or incur expense to g
protect the latter's interest.67
Kon
chan robles law