G.R. No.
114061 August 3, 1994 The findings of the court a quo that the
KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and JUANITO C.
LAPUZ, respondents.
Facts:
Sometime in 1980, Juanito C. Lapuz, an
automotive electrician, was contracted for
employment in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for a
period of one year through Pan Pacific Overseas
Recruiting Services, Inc. Lapuz was supposed to
leave on November 8, 1980, via Korean
Airlines. Initially, he was "wait-listed," which
meant that he could only be accommodated if
any of the confirmed passengers failed to show
up at the airport before departure. When two of
such passengers did not appear, Lapuz and
another person by the name of Perico were
given the two unclaimed seats.
According to Lapuz, he was allowed to check in
with one suitcase and one shoulder bag at the
check-in counter of KAL. He passed through the
customs and immigration sections for routine
check-up and was cleared for departure as
Passenger No. 157 of KAL Flight No. KE 903.
Together with the other passengers, he rode in
the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of the
KAL aircraft for boarding. However, when he
was at the third or fourth rung of the stairs, a
KAL officer pointed to him and shouted "Down!
Down!" He was thus barred from taking the
flight. When he later asked for another booking,
his ticket was canceled by KAL. Consequently,
he was unable to report for his work in Saudi
Arabia within the stipulated 2-week period and
so lost his employment.
Issue: 1.) Whether or not KAL is liable for moral
damages? And 2.) Whether the P100,000 moral
damages awarded to Lapuz is inadequate?
Ruling. 1.) YES. 2.) NO.
KAL's allegation that the respondent
court abused its discretion in awarding
moral and exemplary damages is also
not tenable.
The Court of Appeals granted moral and
exemplary damages because:
defendant-appellant has committed breach of
contract of carriage in bad faith and in wanton,
disregard of plaintiff-appellant's rights as
passenger laid the basis and justification of an
award for moral damages.
x xxx
In the instant case, we find that
defendant-appellant Korean Air Lines
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner when
it "bumped off" plaintiff-appellant on
November 8, 1980, and in addition
treated him rudely and arrogantly as a
"pataygutomna contract worker fighting
Korean Air Lines," which clearly shows
malice and bad faith, thus entitling
plaintiff-appellant to moral damages.
x xxx
Considering that the plaintiff-appellant's
entitlement to moral damages has been
fully established by oral and
documentary evidence, exemplary
damages may be awarded. In fact,
exemplary damages may be awarded,
even though not so expressly pleaded in
the complaint (Kapoe vs. Masa, 134 SCRA
231). By the same token, to provide an
example for the public good, an award of
exemplary damages is also proper
(Armovit vs. Court of Appeals, supra).
On the other hand, Lapuz's claim that the
award of P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary
damages is inadequate is not acceptable either.
His prayer for moral damages of not less than
P1 million and exemplary damages of not less
than P500,000.00 is overblown.
The well-entrenched principle is that moral
damages depend upon the discretion of
the court based on the circumstances of
each case. 5 This discretion is limited by the
principle that the "amount awarded should not
be palpably and scandalously excessive" as to
indicate that it was the result of prejudice or
corruption on the part of the trial
court. 6 Damages are not intended to enrich the
complainant at the expense of the defendant.
They are awarded only to alleviate the moral
suffering that the injured party had undergone
by reason of the defendant's culpable children, Bernardita and Emerito, managed to
action. 7 There is no hard-and-fast rule in the clamber up the hull of the boat and were
determination of what would be a fair amount of rescued by a passing yacht. Another daughter,
moral damages since each case must be Cecilia, was picked up by one of the other
governed by its own peculiar facts. watercrafts that came to succor. Private
respondents lost cash and personal belongings.
A review of the record of this case shows Merceditas, their six-year old daughter was
that the injury suffered by Lapuz is not so missing and could not be located even after they
serious or extensive as to warrant an reached Manila around 7:00 P.M. of that day.
award of P1.5 million. The assessment of After six days of fruitless and heart-rending
P100,000 as moral and exemplary inquiries, private respondents were summoned
damages in his favor is, in our view, to FunerariaQuiogue were they identified a
reasonable and realistic. lifeless body as that of their daughter,
Merceditas. There were other fatalities.
G.R. No. L-63723. September 2, 1983.
For damages based on the drowning of
MERCEDITAS, the DIZONS filed a
SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES,
complaint against SARKIES and
INC., Petitioner, v. INTERMEDIATE
MENDOZA before the then Court of First
APPELLATE COURT, ARSENIO S. DIZON,
Instance of Manila.
JR. and VIOLETA R.
DIZON, Respondents.
Trial Court: exonerated SARKIES.
Facts: A few weeks before June 12, 1971,
On appeal to the then Court of Appeals, it
petitioner Sarkies Tours Phils., Inc. (SARKIES,
reversed and held both SARKIES and
for short) advertised in the newspapers its tour
MENDOZA jointly and severally liable for the
to Corregidor on Independence Day, for a fee of
damages for the reason that the relationship
"P10.00 per person including: a) boat fare -
between SARKIES and the excursionists was "a
Manila-Corregidor-Manila b) shrine fee and c)
single operation . . . which in effect guaranteed
tour of Corregidor Island by bus." A day before
them safepassage all throughout".
the scheduled tour, private respondent spouses
(the DIZONS, for short), purchased six round-
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner shall be
trip tickets from SARKIES. They were issued an
held liable for exemplary damages?
official receipt under the SARKIES letterhead.
Ruling: NO.
The M/V Edisco, owned and operated by
MENDOZA, is an oversized motorized banca
"It is not enough to say that an example
with outriggers, a steel hull, a canvas awning
should be made, or corrective measures
and rattan chairs on the deck. It was not
be employed, for the public good
registered to ferry passengers, nor was it
especially in accident cases where public
licensed to operate as a watercraft. On that trip,
carriers are involved. The causative
it had 146 passengers on board and was
negligence in such cases is personal to
overloaded and lacked adequate lifesaving
the employees actually in charge of the
equipment.
vehicles, and it is they who should be
made to pay this kind of damages by way
Upon reaching Corregidor, the excursionists
of example or correction, unless by the
went on a guided tour conducted by petitioner’s
demonstrative tolerance or approval of
representative.
the owners they themselves can be held
at fault and their fault is of the character
On the return trip to Manila, the weather was
described in article 2232 of the Civil
practically the same as when they left but with
Code."
intermittent rains (Folio, p. 77). Around 2:00
P.M., disaster struck after about thirty minutes
In the case at bar, there is no showing
of cruising. The boat leaned towards starboard
that SARKIES acted "in a wanton . . . or
and the chairs slid into the water in that
malevolent manner" (Art. 2232, Civil
direction. In a matter of seconds, the boat
Code).
capsized. Private respondents and their two