Transpo v. Damages

8/9/2019 Transpo v. Damages

1/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

V. Damages1. Davila vs PAL 49 SCRA 492. KLM vs CA (197!". #$i%e& Ai'li$e vs CA (21!4. )alamea vs CA (199"!. )*l*e%a vs Pa$+Am (1972!,. L-e/ vs PAN+AM (19,,!7. Vi0%-' Li$e' I$0. vs amma& (24!3. S*li0i- Li$es I$0. vs CA (199!9. Pe-le vs M-'e (1999!1. T*ga&e vs CA (2"!

.R. N-. L+2312 e5'*a' 236 197"PDRO R. DAVILA a$& PRCIOSA C. TIRO6 plaintifs-appellants,vs.P8ILIPPIN AIR LINS6 deendant-appellant.Dizon, De Guzman and Vitug and Pedro R. Davila for plaintis-appellants.Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, elo and !ngsia"o for defendant-appellant.MAKALINTAL6J.:In Civil Case No. 5728 o the Court o First Instance o Iloilo (Pedro .!avila and Preciosa C. "irol, plaintifs, vs. Philippine #ir $ines, Inc.,deendant% &ud'ent )as rendered orderin' the deendant to pa* theplaintifs various sus o one*, as ollo)s+

(% For the death o Pedro ". !avila, r. the aounto P,///.//0

(2% For the loss o the earnin' capacit* o thedeceased at the rate o P2,///.// per annu or1ve (5% *ears in the aount o i3t* "housandPesos. (P/,///.//%0(4% For oral daa'es in avor o the plaintifs "en

"housand Pesos (P/,///.//%0(% For e3eplar* daa'es in the aount o "en

"housand Pesos (P/,///.//%0(5% For actual daa'es the aount o Five

"housand Pesos (P5,///.//% 6roen do)n to asollo)s+ # role3 )atch valued at P//.//0 a pistol)orth P4//.//0 6urial e3penses P//.//0 or thelot and the ausoleu P4,5//.//0(% For #ttorne*s ees the aount o "en "housandPesos (P/,///.//% or a total aount o 9ne:undred and 9ne "housand Pesos (P/,///.//%

"o pa* the costs o this proceedin's.;oth parties appealed directl* to this Court in vie) o the a''re'ateo the aounts a)arded, the &ud'ent havin' 6een rendered 6eorethe efectivit* o ep. #ct No. 5/. In this appeal the plaintifs seean increase in said aounts, and the deendant, copletee3oneration ro, or at least iti'ation o, lia6ilit*.

"he case arose ro the tra'ic crash o a passen'er plane o thedeendant )hich too the lives o all its cre) and passen'ers. "heplane, identi1ed as PI-C44, )as a !C-4 t*pe o aircrat,anuactured in i'ht. !espite itsa'e, ho)ever, it had 6een certi1ed as air)orth* 6* the Civil#eronautics #dinistration. 9n Nove6er 24, ictin' ne)spaper reports, untilthe* received, on !ece6er i'ht o plane PI-C4 in the aternoon o Nove6er 24, i'ht 6et)eeno6lon and ?indoro the aircrat )as drited )est)ard 6* the cross-)inds then 6lo)in' in the re'ion. "he deendant, ho)ever, has not'iven a de1nite e3planation as to )h*, i such )as the case, the pilotailed to ae the necessar* correction in his >i'ht to copensate orthe drit. #ccordin' to the deendants )itness, ?a&. ?i&ares, Chie othe #viation aet* !ivision o the Civil #eronautics #dinistrationand Chairan o the C## Investi'atin' Coittee, there )as anavi'ational error, to )hich several actors contri6uted+ Bthe )eathero6servation at that tie ro the eather ;ureau )as not so 'ood6et)een ?t. ;aco and o6lon and the )ind alot )as =uite stron',)hich )ould 6e also one o the causes or the dritin' o the aircrat0and the other stron' pro6a6ilit*, I )ould sa*, )ould 6e thealunction o the aircrats navi'ational instruent.B :e urthere3plained that Ba cross-)ind can drit the plane i the pilot )ill notae the necessar* correction, i his navi'ational instruent isalunctionin' and the visual reerence outside the aircrat could notae the necessar* corrections.B

"here is nothin' in the testion* o ?a&. ?i&ares to sho) &ust ho)stron' the cross-)inds )ere in the re'ion at the tie, althou'h in theinvesti'ation o the accident 6* the enate Coittee ontransportation there )as testion* that the cross-)inds had avelocit* o either 2/ to 25 nots or 25 to 45 nots an hour.Considerin' the relativel* short distance ro o6lon to ?t. ;acoand the 6rie span o tie it )ould tae to >* that distance, cross-)inds )ith the velocit* stated could not have possi6l* deviated the

plane 6* as uch as 42 iles."he deendant points out that the navi'ational instruent on 6oardthe plane consisted o t)o (2% sets o autoatic direction 1nders(#!F% )hich, )hen ound ater the crash, sho)ed a readin' that theaircrat )as headin' north, )hich )as the proper >i'ht direction. "hispoint, ho)ever, is o no vital si'ni1cance in this case since it does note3plain )h* the aircrat )as 42 iles of its prescri6ed route in the1rst place. It is su''ested that the pilot did not notice the drit o hisplane 6ecause o poor visi6ilit* due to thic clouds, )hich preventedhi ro ain' the correspondin' correction on the 6asis o visualreerences to the terrain outside. ;ut accordin' to ?a&. ?i&ares hiselthe report ro the eather ;ureau at the tie sho)ed that visi6ilit*)as 5 iles 6et)een o6lon and ?t. ;aco and that the cloudsro 2,7// to 7,/// t. elevation )ere Bscattered.B #nd the pro1le othe pro6a6le )eather cross-section alon' air)a* B#6er IB durin' the>i'ht (D3h. 44-#% sho)s that at ,/// t. the airlane )as clear and reeo clouds. "he su''estion thereore that the pilot )as practicall*

>*in' 6lind and conse=uentl* ailed to notice the drit o the aircrat isnot &usti1ed 6* the evidence. Indeed even the investi'atin' tea othe deendant under the chairanship o Capt. aie ?an@anoconcluded in its report that B6ased on the liited evidences availa6le,the 6oard is o the opinion that the pro6a6le cause )as the ina6il it* othe pilot to intersect air)a* B#6er IB over o6lon and to aintaintrac )ithin its desi'nated air)a* lane or reasons unno)n.Bhat is undisputed thereore is that the pilot did not ollo) the routeprescri6ed or his >i'ht, at least 6et)een o6lon and ?anila. inceup to that point over o6lon, )here he )as supposed to intersectair)a* B#6er IB the )eather )as clear, the ost reasona6leconclusion is that his ailure to do so )as intentional, and that hepro6a6l* )anted to >* on a strai'ht line to ?anila. It )as a violationo air-crat traEc rules to )hich, under the circustances, theaccident a* 6e directl* attri6uta6le.In an* case, a6sent a satisactor* e3planation on the part o thedeendant as to ho) and )h* the accident occurred, the presuptionis that it )as at ault, under #rticle 75 o the Civil Code.

"he ne3t =uestion relates to the aount o daa'es that should 6ea)arded to the plaintifs, parents o the deceased. "he trial court13ed the indenit* or his death in the aount o P,///.//.Pursuant to current &urisprudence on the point it should 6e increasedto P2,///.//.1

"he deceased )as eplo*ed as ana'er o a radio station2, ro)hich he )as earnin' P8,//.// a *ear, consistin' o a onthl*salar* o P//.// and allo)ance o P//.//. #s a la)*er and &uniorpartner o his ather in the la) oEce, he had an annual incoe oP4,//.//. Fro arin' he )as 'ettin' an avera'e o P4,///.//. #llin all thereore the deceased had 'ross earnin's o P5,///.// a *ear.#ccordin' to #rticle 22/, para'raph (%, o the Civil Code, Bthedeendant shall 6e lia6le or the loss o the earnin' capacit* o thedeceased and indenit* shall 6e paid to the heirs o the latter.B "his#rticle, )hile reerrin' to Bdaa'es or death caused 6* crie or=uasi-delict,B is e3pressl* ade applica6le 6* #rticle 7 Bto thedeath o a passen'er caused 6* the 6reach o contract 6* a coon

carrier.B"he deceased, Pedro !avila, r., )as sin'le and 4/ *ears o a'e )henhe died. #t that a'e ones noral lie e3pectanc* is 44-4 *ears,accordin' to the orula (24 3 G8/-4/H% adopted 6* this Court in thecase o Villa Rey #ransit, $nc. vs. %ourt of &ppeals"on the 6asis o the#erican D3pectanc* "a6le o ?ortalit* or the #ctuarial o Co6inedD3perience "a6le o ?ortalit*. :o)ever, althou'h the deceased )as inrelativel* 'ood health, his edical histor* sho)s that he hadcoplained o and 6een treated or such ailents as 6acaches,chest pains and occasional eelin's o tiredness. It is reasona6le toae an allo)ance or these circustances and consider, orpurposes o this case, a reduction o his l ie e3pectanc* to 25 *ears.In the sae case o illa evenue "ransit this Court stated+B... earnin' capacit*, as an eleent o daa'es to ones estate or hisdeath 6* )ron'ul act is necessaril* his net earnin' capacit* or hiscapacit* to ac=uire one*, less the necessar* e3pense or his o)n

DAMAS


2/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

livin'. tated other)ise, the aount recovera6le is not loss o theentire earnin's, 6ut rather the loss o that portion o the earnin's)hich the 6ene1ciar* )ould have received. In other )ords, onl* netearnin's, not 'ross earnin's, are to 6e considered, that is, the total othe earnin's less e3penses necessar* in the creation o such earnin'sor incoe and less livin' and other incidental e3penses.BConsiderin' the act that the deceased )as 'ettin' his incoe rothree (4% diferent sources, nael* ro ana'in' a radio station,ro la) practice and ro arin', the e3penses incidental to the'eneration o such incoe )ere necessaril* ore than i he had onl*one source. "o'ether )ith his livin' e3penses, a deduction o P//.//a onth, or P7,2//.// a *ear, sees to As reasona6le, leavin' a net*earl* incoe o P7,8//.//. "his aount, ultiplied 6* 25 *ears, orP


3/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

(d% "he contract o air transportation )as e3clusivel* 6et)een therespondents and the K$?, the latter erel* endorsin' its peroranceto other carriers, lie #er $in'us, as its su6contractors or a'ents, asevidenced 6* the passa'e ticets theselves )hich on their acedisclose that the* are K$? ticets. ?oreover, the respondents dealtonl* )ith K$? throu'h the travel a'enc*.)."he applica6ilit* insisted upon 6* the K$? o article 4/ o thearsa) Convention cannot 6e sustained. "hat article presupposes theoccurrence o either an accident or a dela*, neither o )hich tooplace at the ;arcelona airport0 )hat is here aniest, instead, is thatthe #er $in'us, throu'h its ana'er there, reused to transport therespondents to their planned and contracted destination.0."he ar'uent that the K$? should not 6e held accounta6le or thetortious conduct o #er $in'us 6ecause o the provision printed on therespondents ticets e3pressl* liitin' the K$?s lia6ilit* or daa'esonl* to occurrences on its o)n lines is unaccepta6le. #s noted 6* theCourt o #ppeals that condition )as printed in letters so sall thatone )ould have to use a a'ni*in' 'lass to read the )ords. Anderthe circustances, it )ould 6e unair and ine=uita6le to char'e therespondents )ith autoatic no)led'e or notice o the said conditionso as to preclude an* dou6t that it )as airl* and reel* a'reed upon6* the respondents )hen the* accepted the passa'e ticets issued tothe 6* the K$?. #s the airline )hich issued those ticets )ith theno)led'e that the respondents )ould 6e >o)n on the various le's otheir &ourne* 6* diferent air carriers, the K$? )as char'ea6le )iththe dut* and responsi6ilit* o speci1call* inorin' the respondentso conditions prescri6ed in their ticets or, in the ver* least, toascertain that the respondents read the 6eore the* accepted theirpassa'e ticets. # thorou'h search o the record, ho)ever,ine3plica6l* ails to sho) that an* efort )as e3erted 6* the K$?oEcials or eplo*ees to dischar'e in a proper anner this

responsi6ilit* to the respondents. Conse=uentl*, )e hold that therespondents cannot 6e 6ound 6* the provision in =uestion 6* )hichK$? unilaterall* assued the role o a ere ticet-issuin' a'ent orother airlines and liited its lia6ilit* onl* to unto)ard occurrences onits o)n lines.1.?oreover, as aintained 6* the respondents and the Court o#ppeals, the passa'e ticets o the respondents provide that thecarria'e to 6e perored thereunder 6* several successive carriers Bisto 6e re'arded as a sin'le operation,B )hich is diaetricall*incopati6le )ith the theor* o the K$? that the respondents enteredinto a series o independent contracts )ith the carriers )hich toothe on the various se'ents o their trip. "his position o K$? )ere&ect. "he respondents dealt e3clusivel* )ith the K$? )hich issuedthe ticets or their entire trip and )hich in efect 'uaranteed tothe that the* )ould have sure space in #er $in'us >i'ht 8. "herespondents, under that assurance o the internationall* presti'iousK$?, naturall* had the ri'ht to e3pect that their ticets )ould 6ehonored 6* #er $in'us to )hich, in the le'al sense, the K$? hadindorsed and in efect 'uaranteed the perorance o its principalen'a'eent to carr* out the respondents scheduled itinerar*previousl* and utuall* a'reed upon 6et)een the parties.2."he 6reach o that 'uarantee )as a''ravated 6* the discourteousand hi'hl* ar6itrar* conduct o an oEcial o the #er $in'us )hich theK$? had en'a'ed to transport the respondents on the ;arcelona-$ourdes se'ent o their itinerar*. It is 6ut &ust and in ull accord )iththe polic* e3pressl* e6odied in our civil la) )hich en&oins courts to6e ore vi'ilant or the protection o a contractin' part* )hooccupies an inerior position )ith respect to the other contractin'part*, that the K$? should 6e held responsi6le or the a6use, in&ur*and e6arrassent sufered 6* the respondents at the hands o asupercilious 6oor o the #er $in'us.#CC9!INL$, the &ud'ent o the Court o #ppeals dated #u'ust, i'ht, the*proceeded to Anited #irlines counter )here the* )ere attended 6* aneplo*ee )earin' a naeplate 6earin' the nae Q$IN!#.R $indae3ained their ticets, punched soethin' into her coputer andthen told the that 6oardin' )ould 6e in 1teen inutes.GH

hen the >i'ht )as called, the Fontanillas proceeded to theplane. "o their surprise, the ste)ardess at the 'ate did not allo)the to 6oard the plane, as the* had no assi'ned seatnu6ers. "he* )ere then directed to 'o 6ac to the Qchec-inRcounter )here $inda su6se=uentl* inored the that the >i'ht had6een over6ooed and ased the to )ait.G5H

"he Fontanillas tried to e3plain to $inda the specialcircustances o their visit. :o)ever, $inda told the in arro'antanner, QSo +at, $ can not do anyting a3out it.RGH

u6se=uentl*, three other passen'ers )ith Caucasian eatures)ere 'raciousl* allo)ed to 6oard, ater the Fontanillas )ere told thatthe >i'ht had 6een over6ooed.G7H

"he plane then too of )ith the FontanillasS 6a''a'e in to),leavin' the 6ehind.G8H

"he Fontanillas then coplained to $inda, )ho in turn 'avethe an u'l* stare and rudel* uttered, 4$t5s not my fault. $t5s tefault of te company. 6ust sit do+n and +ait.RGi'ht, )hichdeparted or an Francisco at +// a.. It )as onl* at 2+// noonthat the* )ere a6le to leave $os #n'eles on Anited #irlines Fli'ht No.8/4.

Petitioner Anited #irlines has a diferent version o )hatoccurred at the $os #n'eles #irport on ?a* 5,


4/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

Petitioner Anited #irlines no) coes to this Court raisin' theollo)in' assi'nent o errors+

I

DP9N!DN" C9A" 9F #PPD#$ L#D$ DD! IN A$INL":#" ":D "I#$ C9A" # 9NL IN F#I$INL "9 C9NI!D":D #$$DLD! #!?II9N ":#" PI#"D DP9N!DN"9;DD! ":D C:DCK-IN DMAID?DN".

II

DP9N!DN" C9A" 9F #PPD#$ L#D$ DD! IN A$INL":#" PI#"D DP9N!DN"S F#I$AD "9 C:DCK-IN I$$ N9"!DFD#" :I C$#I? ;DC#AD ":D !DNID! ;9#!INL A$DDD N9" C9?P$ID! I":.

III

DP9N!DN" C9A" 9F #PPD#$ L#D$ DD! IN A$INL":#" PI#"D DP9N!DN" I DN"I"$D! "9 ?9#$ !#?#LD9F P2//, ///.

IV

DP9N!DN" C9A" 9F #PPD#$ L#D$ DD! IN A$INL":#" PI#"D DP9N!DN" I DN"I"$D! "9 DTD?P$#!#?#LD 9F P2//,///.

V

DP9N!DN" C9A" 9F #PPD#$ L#D$ DD! IN A$INL":#" PI#"D DP9N!DN" I DN"I"$D! "9 #""9NDS FDD9F P5/, ///.G7H

9n the 1rst issue raised 6* the petitioner, the respondent Courto #ppeals ruled that )hen ule


5/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

333 plaintifs clai to have 6een discriinated a'ainst and insulted inthe presence o several people. Anortunatel*, plaintifs liited theirevidence to the testion* GoH #niceto Fontanilla, )ithout an*corro6oration 6* the people )ho sa) or heard the discriinator*rears and insults0 )hile such liited testion* could possi6l* 6etrue, it does not ena6le the Court to reach the conclusion thatplaintifs have, 6* a preponderance o evidence, proven that the* areentitled to P,5/,///.// daa'es ro deendant.G4H

#s to the a)ard o oral and e3eplar* daa'es, )e 1nd errorin the a)ard o such 6* the Court o #ppeals. For the plaintif to 6eentitled to an a)ard o oral daa'es arisin' ro a 6reach ocontract o carria'e, the carrier ust have acted )ith raud or 6ad

aith. "he appellate court predicated its a)ard on our pronounceentin the case o'alamea vs. %ourt of &ppeals, supra, )here )e stated+

D3istin' &urisprudence e3plicitl* states that over6ooin' aounts to6ad aith, entitlin' passen'ers concerned to an a)ard o oraldaa'es. In&litalia &ir+ays v. %ourt of &ppeals, )here passen'ers)ith con1red 6ooin' )ere reused carria'e on the last inute, thisCourt held that )hen an airline issues a ticet to a passen'ercon1red on a particular >i'ht, on a certain date, a contract ocarria'e arises, and the passen'er has ever* ri'ht to e3pect that he)ould >* on that >i'ht and on that date. I he does not, then thecarrier opens itsel to a suit or 6reach o contract o carria'e. herean airline had &eli5e'a%el -ve'5--i'hts ori'inatin' ro or terinatin' at, or servin' a point )ithin theterritor* o the epu6lic o the Philippines insoar as it denies6oardin' to a passen'er on a >i'ht, or portion o a >i'ht inside oroutside the Philippines, or )hich he holds con1red reservedspace. Furtherore, this e'ulation is desi'ned to cover onl* honestistaes on the part o the carriers and e3cludes deli6erate and)illul acts o non-accoodation. P'-vi&e&6 :-;eve'6 %:a%-ve'5--i'hts.

"he actual 6acdrop o the case is as ollo)s+

Petitioners-spouses Cesar C. Xalaea and uthira Xalaea, and theirdau'hter, $iana Xalaea, purchased three (4% airline ticets ro the?anila a'ent o respondent "ransorld #irlines, Inc. or a >i'ht to Ne)

or to $os #n'eles on une , i'ht andpurchased t)o ticets ro #erican #irlines at a cost o Nine:undred Di'hteen (Oi'hts is a coon andaccepted practice o airlines in the Anited tates and is speci1call*allo)ed under the Code o Federal e'ulations 6* the Civil#eronautics ;oard, no raud nor 6ad aith could 6e iputed onrespondent "ransorld #irlines.?oreover, )hile respondent "# )as reiss in not inorin'

petitioners that the >i'ht )as over6ooed and that even a person)ith a con1red reservation a* 6e denied accoodation on anover6ooed >i'ht, nevertheless it ruled that such oission orne'li'ence cannot under the circustances 6e considered to 6e so'ross as to aount to 6ad aith.Finall*, it also held that there )as no 6ad aith in placin' petitioners inthe )ait-list alon' )ith ort*-ei'ht (8% other passen'ers )here ull-are 1rst class ticets )ere 'iven priorit* over discounted ticets.

"he dispositive portion o the decision o respondent Court o#ppeals"dated 9cto6er 25,


6/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

. . . IN D$I?IN#"INL ":D ##! 9F DTD?P$#!#?#LD.

III.. . . IN N9" 9!DINL ":D DFAN! 9F $I#N#X#$#?D# "# "ICKD" #N! P#?DN" F9 ":D#?DIC#N #I$IND

"ICKD".

"hat there )as raud or 6ad aith on the part o respondent airline)hen it did not allo) petitioners to 6oard their >i'ht or $os #n'elesin spite o con1red ticets cannot 6e disputed. "he A.. la) orre'ulation alle'edl* authori@in' over6ooin' has never 6een proved.Forei'n la)s do not prove theselves nor can the courts tae &udicialnotice o the. $ie an* other act, the* ust 6e alle'ed andproved.,ritten la) a* 6e evidenced 6* an oEcial pu6licationthereo or 6* a cop* attested 6* the oEcer havin' the le'al custod*o the record, or 6* his deput*, and accopanied )ith a certi1catethat such oEcer has custod*. "he certi1cate a* 6e ade 6* asecretar* o an e6ass* or le'ation, consul 'eneral, consul, vice-consul, or consular a'ent or 6* an* oEcer in the orei'n service o thePhilippines stationed in the orei'n countr* in )hich the record isept, and authenticated 6* the seal o his oEce.7

espondent "# relied solel* on the stateent o ?s. L)endol*n$ather, its custoer service a'ent, in her deposition dated anuar*27, i'ht //7 in 1rstclass o une , i'ht to $os#n'eles not 6ecause the* Bopted not to use their "# ticets onanother "# >i'htB 6ut 6ecause respondent "# could notaccoodate the either on the ne3t "# >i'ht )hich )as also ull*6ooed. 14"he purchase o the #erican #irlines ticets 6* petitionersuthira and $iana )as the conse=uence o respondent "#sun&usti1a6le 6reach o its contracts o carria'e )ith petitioners. Inaccordance )ith #rticle 22/, Ne) Civil Code, respondent "#should, thereore, 6e responsi6le or all daa'es )hich a* 6ereasona6l* attri6uted to the non-perorance o its o6li'ation. In thepreviousl* cited case o&litalia &ir+ays v. %ourt of &ppeals, 1

thisCourt e3plicitl* held that a passen'er is entitled to 6e rei6ursed orthe cost o the ticets he had to 6u* or a >i'ht to another airline.

"hus, instead o sipl* 6ein' reunded or the cost o the unused "#ticets, petitioners should 6e a)arded the actual cost o their >i'htro Ne) or to $os #n'eles. 9n this score, )e difer ro the trialcourts rulin' )hich ordered not onl* the rei6urseent o the#erican #irlines ticets 6ut also the reund o the unused "#ticets. "o re=uire 6oth prestations )ould have ena6led petitioners to>* ro Ne) or to $os #n'eles )ithout an* are 6ein' paid.

"he a)ard to petitioners o attorne*s ees is also &usti1ed under#rticle 22/8(2% o the Civil Code )hich allo)s recover* )hen thedeendants act or oission has copelled plaintif to liti'ate or toincur e3penses to protect his interest. :o)ever, the a)ard or oraldaa'es and e3eplar* daa'es 6* the trial court is e3cessive inthe li'ht o the act that onl* uthira and $iana Xalaea )ere actuall*B6uped of.B #n a)ard o P5/,///.// oral daa'es and anotherP5/,///.// e3eplar* daa'es )ould suEce under thecircustances o6tainin' in the instant case.:DDF9D, the petition is here6* L#N"D! and the decision o the

respondent Court o #ppeals is here6* ?9!IFID! to the e3tent oad&ud'in' respondent "ransorld #irlines to pa* daa'es topetitioners in the ollo)in' aounts, to )it+(% AO* to $os #n'elesro Ne) or Cit*0(2% P5/,///.// as oral daa'es0(4% P5/,///.// as e3eplar* daa'es0(% P5/,///.// as attorne*s ees0 and(5% Costs o suit.9 9!DD!.(arvasa, %.6., Padilla, Regalado and Puno, 66., concur.

.R. N-. L+2339 e5'*a' 296 1972RAAL )#L#TA6 T AL.6 plaintifs-appellees,vs.

PAN AMRICAN WORLD AIRWA=S6 INC.6 deendant-appellant.6ose 7. Dio"no for plaintis-appellees.Ross, Salcedo, Del Rosario, ito and Misa for defendant-appellant.CONCPCION6 C.J.:p#ppeal, taen 6* deendant Pan #erican orld #ir)a*s, Inc., ro adecision o the Court o First Instance o i@al, sentencin' saiddeendant to pa* herein plaintifs J aael Xulueta, "ell* #l6ertXulueta and Carolinda Xulueta J Bthe su o P5,5/2.85, as actualdaa'es0 plus the urther su o P,///,///.// as oral daa'es0the urther su o P//,///.// as e3eplar* daa'es0 andattorne*s ees in the su o P//,///.//B )ith the costs a'ainst saiddeendant, hereinater reerred to as P#N#? or the sae o 6revit*.It is not disputed that, on 9cto6er 24,


7/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

Xulueta J hereinater reerred to as ?iss Xulueta J )ere passen'ersa6oard a P#N#? plane, on Fli'ht No. 8-24, ro :onolulu to ?anila,the 1rst le' o )hich )as ae Island. #s the plane landed on saidIsland, the passen'ers )ere advised that the* could dise6ar or astopover o a6out 4/ inutes. hortl* 6eore reachin' that place, the>i'ht )as, accordin' to the plaintifs, Bver* rou'h.B "esti*in' orP#N#? its purser, ?iss chit@, asserted, ho)ever, that it )as Bver*calB0 6ut her notes, D3hi6it 7 J prepared upon the re=uest oCaptain Xentner, on account o the incident involved in this case Jstate that there )as Bunusuall* sall aount o rou'hness,B )hich:is :onor, the "rial ud'e, considered properl* as Ban adission thatthere )as rou'hness, onl* the de'ree thereo is in dispute.B In an*event, plaintif testi1ed that, havin' ound the need to relieve hisel,he )ent to the ens coort roo at the terinal 6uildin', 6ut oundit ull o soldiers, in vie) o )hich he )aled do)n the 6each soe// *ards a)a*.?ean)hile, the >i'ht )as called and )hen the passen'ers had6oarded the plane, plaintifs a6sence )as noticed. "he tae-of )as,accordin'l*, dela*ed and a search or hi )as conducted 6* ?rs.Xulueta, ?iss Xulueta and other persons. ?inutes later, plaintif )asseen )alin' 6ac ro the 6each to)ards the terinal. :eadin'to)ards the rap o the plane, plaintif reared, Bou people alostade e iss *our >i'ht. ou have a deective announcin' s*steand I )as not pa'ed.B #t this point, the decision appealed ro hasthe ollo)in' to sa*+

(% Plaintifs )ere on their )a* to the plane inorder to 6oard it, 6ut deendants eplo*ees JKenneth itton, deendants airport ana'er,accordin' to plaintifs0 a*ne Pendleton,deendants airport custoer service supervisor,accordin' to deendant J stopped the at the

'ate. "his is )hat the report o a*ne Pendletonthe airport custoer service supervisor, sa*s+...I ade no coent to the passen'er 6ut turnedand led the 'roup to)ard the rap. ust as )ereached the 6oardin' 'ate, ?r. Xulueta spoe toe or the 1rst tie sa*in', You people alostade e iss *our >i'ht. ou have a deectiveannouncin' s*ste and I )as not pa'ed.BI )as a6out to ae soe repl* )hen I noticed thecaptain o the >i'ht standin' on the rap, id)a*6et)een the 'ate and the aircrat, and talin' )iththe senior aintenance supervisor and severalother persons. "he captain otioned or e to &oinhi )hich I did, indicating to te 'ulueta familytat tey sould +ait for a moment at te gate.-- B>. C.(2% "hereater, one o deendants eplo*ees J?r. itton, accordin' to plaintifs0 ?r. Pendletonaccordin' to deendants J ased plaintifs to turnover their 6a''a'e clai checs. Plaintifs did so,handin' hi our (% clai checs.(4% :o)ever, onl* three (4% 6a's )ere located andse're'ated ro the rest o the passen'erslu''a'e. "he ites hand-carried 6* plaintifs,e3cept or plaintifs overcoat, )ere also 6rou'htdo)n. "hese hand-carried ites, ho)ever, )erenot opened or inspected0 later, plaintifs ?rs.Xulueta and ?iss Xulueta )ere peritted tore6oard the plane )ith their hand-carried lu''a'e0and )hen the plane too of, a6out t)o and a halhours later, it carried plaintifs ourth 6a', hisovercoat and the hand-carried lu''a'e.(% 9nce three 6a's had 6een identi1ed, and )hilethe search )as 'oin' on or the ourth 6a', ?r.itton, deendants airport ana'er, deanded

that plaintifs open the 6a's (actuall*, the* )ereclosed, 6ut not loced% and allo) deendantseplo*ees to inspect the. Plaintif aael Xuluetareused and )arned that deendant could open the6a's onl* 6* orce and at its peril o a la) suit.(5% ?r. itton, deendants ana'er, then toldplaintif that he )ould not 6e allo)ed to proceed to?anila on 6oard the plane and handed Xulueta theollo)in' letters+

B2 9cto6er i'ht 824 due to theact that *ou have reused toopen *our checed 6a''a'e orInspection as re=uested.!urin' *our sta* on aeIsland, )hich )ill 6e or ainiu o one )ee, *ou )ill6e char'ed O4.4/ per da* oreach e6er o *our part*.

K. itton#irport ?ana'er, ae IslandPan #erican orld #ir)a*s, Inc.BJ B>. D(% #ll this happened in plain vie) and )ithinearshot o the other passen'ers on the plane,an* o )ho )ere Filipinos )ho ne) plaintifs0

"he departure o the plane )as dela*ed or a6outt)o hours(7% "hou'h ori'inall* all three plaintifs had 6eenof loaded, plaintif re=uested that his )ie anddau'hter 6e peritted to continue )ith the >i'ht.

"his )as allo)ed 6ut the* )ere re=uired to leavethe three 6a's 6ehind. Nevertheless, the plane did>* )ith the Plaintifs ourth 6a'0 it )as oundaon' all other passen'ers lu''a'e >o)n to?anila upon the planes arrival here.(8% Apon arrival at ?anila, ?rs. Xulueta deandedo deendants ?anila oEce that it re-route plaintifaael Xulueta to ?anila at the earliest possi6letie, 6* the astest route, and at its e3pense0deendant reused0 so plaintifs )ere orced to pa*or his ticet and to send hi one* as he )as)ithout unds.(


8/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

to Bsu6it their deposition.B "he records do not sho) that an* suchefort to 6rin' the aoreentioned )itnesses had 6een e3erted. "hedeense has not even tried to e3plain )h* the deposition o said)itnesses )as not taen. hat is )orse, the profered e3planation Jthat the si3 (% persons )ho testi1ed or the deense1)ere 6elieved,6* deense counsel, to 6e enou'h or the three (4% da*s o 9cto6erset or the reception o his evidence 2J indicates thatnoefort)hatsoever had 6een ade either to 6rin' the Bother )itnessesB "orto tae and su6it their depositions.;esides, the testion* alle'edl* e3pected o said other )itnesses orthe deense J nael*+ (% that there )as, accordin' to oEcialrecords, no tur6ulence in the >i'ht ro an Francisco to :onolulu, on)hich the testion* o Carol chit@ had touched0 (2% that Ida .Poero* and ohn C. Crai' )ould sa* that the passen'ers )ereadvised not to 'o 6e*ond the terinal and that the stopover )ould 6eor a6out 4/ inutes onl*, on )hich duration o the stopover ?isschit@ had, also testi1ed, as she could have siilarl* testi1ed onsaid advice, had it 6een 'iven0 (4% that either :el'a chle* or ueel6* )ould narrate the s*path* )ith )hich ?rs. Xulueta )asalle'edl* treated durin' the >i'ht ro ae Island to ?anila, )hichis not particularl* relevant or aterial in the case at 6ar0 (% that:eran afe, Lerr* Co)les and Nilo de Luia )ere, also, e3pected tocorro6orate the testion* o Capt. Xentner0 and (5% that Dd'ardoLavino )as e3pected to corro6orate ?ichael "hoas re'ardin' therears ade 6* the plaintif to ?rs. Xulueta and ?iss Xulueta )henthe* and other e6ers o the searchin' part* ound hi in the earl*ornin' o 9cto6er 24, eet-servicean D. Lavino )ho )as)alin' soe)here ahead o the others. ?r.Lavino reared to e privatel* that the trou6leseeed to have steed ro soe doesticdiference 6et)een the Passen'er and his )ie )ho)as not at his side and returnin' )ith hi to the'ate.B9n hearin' ?r. Lavinos rear, I ade nocoent to the passen'er 6ut turned and led the'roup to)ard the rap.6ust as +e reaced te3oarding gate, Mr. 'ulueta spo"e to me for terst time saying, E9ou people almost made memiss your Figt. 9ou ave a defective announcingsystem and $ +as not paged.BJ D3h. 5

DAMAS 8


9/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

Dvidentl*, these could not have 6een the )ords oa an )ho reused to 6oard the plane.(4% "here )as no le'al or ph*sical ipossi6ilit* ordeendant to transport plaintif Xulueta ro aeto ?anila as it had contracted to do. !eendantclais that the saet* o its crat and o the otherpassen'ers deanded that it inspect Xuluetaslu''a'e and )hen he reused to allo) inspectionthat it had no recourse 6ut to leave hi 6ehind.

"he truth that, no)in' that o plaintifs ourpieces o lu''a'e, one could still have 6een J asit )as J a6oard, deendants plane still >e) on to?anila. urel*, i the deendants pilot andeplo*ees reall* 6elieved that Xulueta hadplanted a 6o6 in one o the 6a's the* )ould nothave >o)n on until the* had ade sure that theourth 6a' had 6een let 6ehind at :onolulu untilenou'h tie had lapsed or the 6o6 to have6een e3ploded, since presua6l* it had to have6een set to 'o of 6eore the* reached ?anila.B#t an* rate, it )as =uite evident that Xulueta hadnothin' to hide0 or the report o deendants)itness, ?r. tanle* D. :o, A.. ?arshall on ae,has this to sa*+ BB#6out t)ent* inutes later )hile an attept )as6ein' ade to locate another piece o ?r.Xuluetas lu''a'e his dau'hter, Carolindaapproached her ather and )anted to 'et soeclothes ro one o the suitcases. ?r. Xuluetaased the undersi'ned i it )as alri'ht i heopened the suitcases and 'et the necessar*

clothes. "o this I stated he )as ree to open hislu''a'e and o6tain )hatever he needed. ?r.Xulueta opened a suitcase and too the dress orher then 6oarded the aircrat.BJ D3h. 2; .(% hat is evident to the Court is that deendantJ acted in a anner deli6eratel* calculated tohuiliate and shae plaintifs. #lthou'h the plane)as held up to )ait or plaintif J or, as theCaptain aditted in his testion*, he did so6ecause he ne) that it )ould 6e a )ee 6eoreanother plane )ould coe in or ?anila (t.s.n., 89ct. o)n 6eore)ith the Xuluetas and the* had 6een ver* nice people.

(6% orse, deendants ana'er itton adits that Xulueta had toldhi )ho he )as and his social position in ?anila0 still he insisted thatthe 6a's 6e opened. ?oreover, soe passen'ers had inored thesupervisor that Xulueta )as Bthe ipresarioB0 6ut the* persisted intheir deands.

(c% !eendant never identi1ed the alle'ed tate !epartent en )horeportedl* approached the Captain and e3pressed ear a6out a 6o6,nor did the* conront hi J i he e3isted )ith ?r. Xulueta despite ?r.Xuluetas re=uest.

(d% !eendant did not tae an* steps to put the lu''a'e of-loaded arro its passen'ers and plane, a stran'e procedure i it reall*6elieved the lu''a'e contained a 6o60

(e% !eendant continued )ith the >i'ht no)in' one 6a' -- Xuluetas6a' hisel J had not 6een located and )ithout veri*in' ro:onolulu i the 6a' had 6een ound there, nor even advisin' :onoluluthat a 6a' possi6l* containin' a 6o6 had 6een let there, a'ain anine3plica6le procedure i the* sincerel* 6elieved that Xulueta hadplanted a 6o60

(% !eendants ana'er hisel too Xulueta and his of-loaded 6a's,in his o)n car, ro the terinal 6uildin' to the hotel, )hich is alsoinconsistent )ith a serious 6elie that the lu''a'es contained a 6o60

('% !eendant ne) that )hile Xuluetas 6a's )ere on the 'round, hehad opened one o the )ith the perission and in the presence othe A. . ?arshall in order to ena6le his dau'hter to 'et a dress rothe 6a'0 nothin' suspicious )as seen0 still, deendant insisted onreusin' to allo) Xulueta to continue unless he opened and allo)edinspection o the 6a's 6* the0 .

(h% !eendant copletel* chan'ed his tone and 6ehavior to)ards theXuluetas ater the plane had arrived at ?anila and the Captainlearned that its ?anila ana'er, ?r. 9ppenheier, )as a riend oXulueta0

(i% ?eantie, the attitude o Pan #erican to)ards the Xuluetascaused other passen'ers to resent Xulueta (ee reports ote)ardesses and o Captain Xentner, D3hs. 7, 8, < and /%. B?an*passen'ers )ere an'r* to)ards the Yissin' passen'er,B sa*s ?isschit@s report. B# e) in=uisitive P# (passen'ers% J one )oan=uite rudel* stared once )e )ere air6orne and let ?r. Xulueta 6ehind... an*)a* I told the )oan to sit do)n J so did :el'a J so did thean near her,B sa* ?iss chit@s personal notes. "his con1rs the

testion* o plain plaintifs that, all the )hile the search anddiscussions )ere 'oin' on, the* )ere the su6&ect o stares, rearsand )hisper coents ro the passen'ers and other personsaround the plane.

(&% !eendant did not allo) plaintif Xulueta to6oard the plane at all, even thou'h it )as a)arethat soe o his personal 6elon'in's, such as hisovercoat )ere on the plane. Plaintifs so testi1ed0and thou'h deendants )itness ?r. itton deniedit, claiin' that plaintif )as al)a*s ree to 6oardthe plane, this denial is 6elied 6* the report odeendants o)n )itness, A.. ?arshall :o, )hosaid that+B"en inutes later, ?r. Xulueta ased i he couldtal to his )ie )ho )as a6oard the aircrat. I thenaccopanied hi and as )e 'ot to the rap, )eet ?r. itton )ho stated he )ould suon ?rs.

Xulueta ro the aircrat. ?r. itton suoned?rs. Xulueta and she et her hus6and at the ooto the rap. ?r. Xulueta then ased his )ie andhisel to )hich I replied I )as not concerned )hathe had to sa*.BJ B>. 0-(% Finall*, to add urther huiliation and heapindi'nit* on plaintifs, )hen ?rs. Xulueta arrived at?anila and appealed to deendants ?anilaana'er, ?r. 9ppenheier, to see to it that herhus6and 'ot 6ac as soon as possi6le and )asade as coorta6le as possi6le, at deendantse3pense, ?r. 9ppenheier reused toacno)led'e an* o6li'ation to transport ?r.Xulueta 6ac to ?anila and orcin' ?rs. Xulueta tosend her hus6and O//.// or pocet one* and

DAMAS


10/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

pa* or his are ro ae to ?anila, thru :onoluluand "o*o.

Apon a revie) o the record, e are satis1ed that the ore'oin'1ndin's o :is :onor, the "rial ud'e, are supported 6* apreponderance o the evidence.

"he last t)o (2% assi'nents o error are ere conse=uences o thosealread* disposed o, and, hence, need no e3tended discussion.It is ur'ed, ho)ever, that plaintif is, at ost, entitled to actualdaa'es onl*, 6ecause he )as the 1rst to coit a 6reach ocontract, or havin' 'one over 2// *ards a)a* ro the terinal,)here he could not e3pect to 6e pa'ed. ;ut, P#N#? has not pointedout )hat part o the contract has 6een violated there6*, apart rothe act that the a)ard or daa'es ade in the decision appealedro )as due, notto P#N#?s ailure to so pa'e the plaintif, 6ut tothe orers deli6erate act o leavin' hi at ae Island, and thee6arrassent and huiliation caused to hi and his ail* in thepresence o an* other persons. "hen, also, considerin' the >atnature o the terrain in ae Island, and the a6sence o 6uildin's andstructures, other than the terinal and a odest Bhotel,B as )ell asplaintifs need o relievin' hisel, he had to 1nd a place 6e*ond thevie) o the people and near enou'h the sea to )ash hisel up6eore 'oin' 6ac to the plane.It is ne3t ar'ued that plaintif )as, also, 'uilt* o contri6utor*ne'li'ence or ailure to re6oard the plane )ithin the 4/ inutesannounced 6eore the passen'ers de6ared therero. "his i'hthave &usti1ed a reduction o the daa'es, had plaintif6een un+ittingly

let 6* the plane, o)in' to the ne'li'ence o P#N#?personnel, or even, perhaps, +ittingly, i he could not 6e ound 6eorethe planes departure. It does not, and cannot have such &usti1cationin the case at 6ar, plaintif havin' sho)n up 6eore the plane hadtaen of, and he havin' 6een of-loaded intentionally

and )ith alice

aorethou'ht, or his B6elli'erentB attitude, accordin' to CaptainXentner0 or havin' dared J despite his 6ein' one o Bthreeone*s,B J the ter used 6* Captain Xentner to reer to theXulueta ail* J to ans)er hi 6ac J )hen he (CaptainXentner%said+ B)hat in the hell do *ou thin *ou are UB J in a )a*he had Bnot 6een spoen toB in his B)hole adult lie,B in the presenceo the passen'ers and other P#N#? eplo*ees0 or havin' respondedto a coand o either Xentner or itton to open his (plaintifs% 6a's,)ith a cate'orical reusal and a challen'e or Xentner or itton toopen the 6a's )ithout a search )arrant thereor, there6* ain'aniest the lac o authorit* o the aoreentioned representative oP#N#? to issue said coand and e3posin' hi to ridicule 6eoresaid passen'ers and eplo*ees. ;esides, P#N#?s o)n )itness andeplo*ee, a*ne Pendleton, testi1ed the plane could not tae of at+4/, as scheduled, 6ecause B)e )ere still )aitin' or t)o (2% localpassen'ers.B

A'%i0le 221 - -*' Civil C-&e 'ea&sB

In contracts and =uasi-contracts, the daa'es or )hich the o6li'or)ho acted in 'ood aith is lia6le shall 6e those that are the naturaland pro6a6le conse=uences o the 6reach o the o6li'ation, and )hichthe parties have oreseen or could reasona6l* oreseen at the tiethe o6li'ation )as constituted.

In case o raud, 6ad aith, alice or )anton attitude, the o6li'or shall6e responsi6le or all daa'es )hich a* 6e reasona6l* attri6uted tothe non-perorance o the o6li'ation.

"his responsi6ilit* applies to coon carriers. Pursuant to #rticle75< o the sae Code+

ART. 179.Coon carriers are lia6le or the death or in&uries topassen'ers throu'h the ne'li'ence or )ilul acts o the orerseplo*ees, althou'h such eplo*ees a* have acted 6e*ond the

scope o their authorit* or in violation o the orders o the cooncarriers.

"his lia6ilit* o the coon carriers does notcease proo that the* e3ercised all the dili'ence oa 'ood ather o a ail* in the selection andsupervision o their eplo*ees.

eerrin' no) to the speci1c aounts to daa'es due to plaintifsherein, e note that the su o P5,5/2.85 a)arded to the as actualdaa'es is not seriousl* disputed 6* P#N#?.#s re'ards the oral and e3eplar* daa'es claied 6* theplaintifs, our Civil Code provides+

ART. 21.#n* person )ho )ilull* causes loss orin&ur* to another in a anner that is contrar* toorals, 'ood custos or pu6lic polic* shallcopensate the latter or the daa'e.ART. 2217.?oral daa'es include ph*sicalsuferin', ental an'uish, ri'ht, serious an3iet*,

6esirched reputation, )ounded eelin's, oralshoc, social huiliation, and siilar in&ur*."hou'h incapa6le o pecuniar* coputation, oraldaa'es a* 6e recovered i the* are thepro3iate result o deendants )ron'ul act oroission.ART. 2229. D3eplar* or corrective daa'es areiposed, 6* )a* o e3aple or correction or thepu6lic 'ood, in addition to the oral, teperateli=uidated or copensator* daa'es.ART. 22"2. In contracts and =uasi-contracts, thecourt a* a)ard e3eplar* daa'es i thedeendant acted in a )anton, raudulent, recless,oppressive, or alevolent anner.

"he records apl* esta6lish plaintifs ri'ht to recover 6oth oral ande3eplar* daa'es. Indeed, the rude and rou'h reception plaintif

received at the hands o itton or Captain Xentner )hen the latteret hi at the rap (B)hat in the hell do *ou thin *ou areU Let onthat planeB%0 the enacin' attitude o Xentner or itton and thesupercilious anner in )hich he had ased plaintif to open his 6a's(Bopen *our 6a',B and )hen told that a ourth 6a' )as issin', BIdont 'ive a danB%0 the a6usive lan'ua'e and hi'hl* scornulreerence to plaintifs as one*s 6* one o P#N#?s eplo*ees ()hoturnin' to ?rs. Xulueta and ?iss Xulueta reared, B)ill *ou pullthese three one*s out o hereUB%0 the unriendl* attitude, the u'l*stares and unind rears to )hich plaintifs )ere su6&ected, andtheir 6ein' cordoned 6* en in unior as i the* )ere criinals,)hile plaintif )as ar'uin' )ith itton0 the airline oEcials reusal toallo) plaintif to 6oard the plane on the prete3t that he )as hidin' a6o6 in his lu''a'e and their ar6itrar* and hi'h-handed decision toleave hi in ae0 ?rs. Xuluetas havin' sufered a nervous6reado)n or )hich she )as hospitali@ed as a result o thee6arrassent, insults and huiliations to )hich plaintifs )eree3posed 6* the conduct o P#N#?s eplo*ees0 ?iss Xuluetas havin'sufered shae, huiliation and e6arrassent or the treatentreceived 6* her parents at the airport,J all these &usti* an a)ardor oral daa'es resultin' ro ental an'uish, serious an3iet*,)ounded eelin's, oral shoc, and social huiliation there6*sufered 6* plaintifs.

"he relation 6et)een carrier and passen'erinvolves special and peculiar o6li'ations andduties, diferin' in ind and de'ree, ro those oalost ever* other le'al or contractual relation.9n account o the peculiar situation o the partiesthe la) iplies a proise and iposes upon thecarrier the correspondin' dut* o protection andcourteous treatent. "hereore, the carrier is

under the a6solute dut* o protectin' hispassen'ers ro assault or insult 6* hisel or hisservants. 7

# contract to transport passen'ers is =uitediferent in ind and de'ree ro an* othercontractual relation. #nd this, 6ecause o therelation )hich an air-carrier sustains )ith thepu6lic. Its 6usiness is ainl* )ith the travellin'pu6lic. It invites people to avail o the coortsand advanta'es it ofers. "he contract o aircarria'e, thereore, 'enerates a relation tended)ith a pu6lic dut*. Ne'lect or aleasance o thecarriers eplo*ees naturall* could 'ive 'round oran action or daa'es.Passen'ers do not contract erel* ortransportation. "he* have a ri'ht to 6e treated 6*the carriers eplo*ees )ith indness, respect,courtes* and due consideration. "he* are titled to6e protected a'ainst personal isconduct,in&urious lan'ua'e, indi'nities and a6uses rosuch eplo*ees. o it is, that an* rude ordiscourteous conduct on the part o eplo*eesto)ards a passen'er 'ives the latter an action ordaa'es a'ainst the carrier. 3

# carrier o passen'ers is as uch 6ound toprotect the ro huiliation and insult as roph*sical in&ur* .. It is held in nearl* all &urisdictions,i not universall*, that a carrier is lia6le to apassen'er or huiliation and ental suferin'caused 6* a6usive or insultin' lan'ua'e directedat such passen'er 6* an eplo*ee o the carrier. 9

here a conductor uses lan'ua'e to a passen'er)hich is calculated to insult, huiliate, or )oundthe eelin's o a person o ordinar* eelin's andsensi6ilities, the carrier is lia6le, 6ecause the

contract o carria'e ipliedl* stipulates or decent,courteous, and respectul treatent, at hands othe carriers eplo*ees.1

"he 'eneral rule that a carrier o)es to a passen'erhi'hest de'ree o care has 6een held to includethe dut* to protect the passen'er ro a6usivelan'ua'e 6* the carriers a'ents, or 6* others iunder such circustances that the carriers a'entsshould have no)n a6out it and prevented it.oe o the courts have entioned the iplieddut* o the carrier, arisin' out o the contract ocarria'e, not to insult the passen'er, or perit hito 6e insulted, and even )here no ention isade o this 6asis or lia6ilit*, it is apparent that itis the 'round upon )hich recover* is allo)ed. 11

"he =uestion is )hether the a)ard o P,///,/// as oral daa'es)as proper and &usti1ed 6* the circustances. It has 6een held that

the discretion in 13in' oral daa'es lies in the trial court.

12

#on'the actors courts tae into account in assessin' oral daa'es arethe proessional, social, political and 1nancial standin' o theofended parties on one hand, and the 6usiness and 1nancial positiono the ofender on the other. 1"

In coparativel* recent cases in this &urisdiction, also involvin'6reach o contract o air carria'e, this Court a)arded the aount oP25,///, )here plaintif, a 1rst-class passen'er in an #ir France planero ?anila to oe )as, in ;an'o, orced 6* the ana'er o theairline copan* to leave his 1rst class accoodation ater he )asalread* seated 6ecause there )as a )hite an )ho, the ana'eralle'ed, had a B6etter ri'htB to the seat 140the aount o P2//,///,)here plaintifs, upon con1ration o their reservation in deendantairlines >i'ht ro "o*o to an Francisco )ere issued 1rst classticets, 6ut upon arrival in "o*o )ere inored that there )as noaccoodation or the in the 1rst class copartent and told the*

DAMAS /


11/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

could not 'o unless the* too the tourist class 1J in 6oth o )hichcases the Court ound the airline copanies to have acted in 6adaith, or in a )anton, recless and oppressive anner, &usti*in'lie)ise the a)ard o e3eplar* daa'es.None o the passen'ers involved in said cases )as, ho)ever, of-loaded, uch less in a place as 6arren and isolated as ae Island,)ith the prospect o 6ein' stranded there or a )ee. "heaoreentioned passen'ers )ere erel* constrained to tae a touristor third class accoodation in lieu o the 1rst class passa'e the*)ere entitled to. "hen, also, in none o said cases had the a'ents othe carrier acted )ith the de'ree o alice or 6ad aith o those oP#N#? in the case at 6ar, or caused to the ofended passen'ers aental suferin' arisin' ro in&uries to eelin's, ri'ht and shoc dueto a6usive, rude and insultin' lan'ua'e used 6* the carrierseplo*ees in the presence and )ithin the hearin' o others,copara6le to that caused 6* P#N#?s eplo*ees to plaintifs herein

"o soe e3tent, ho)ever, plaintif had contri6uted to the 'ravit* othe situation 6ecause o the e3tree 6elli'erence )ith )hich he hadreacted on the occasion. e do not over-loo the act that he &ustl*6elieved he should uphold and deend his di'nit* and that o thepeople o this countr* that the discoort, the diEculties, and,perhaps, the ordeal throu'h )hich he had 'one to relieve hisel J)hich )ere unno)n to P#N#?s a'ents J )ere such as to put hi inno ood to 6e understandin' o the shortcoin' o others0 and thatsaid P#N#? a'ents should have 1rst in=uired, )ith an open ind,a6out the cause o his dela* instead o assuin' that he )as at aultand o tain' an arro'ant and over6earin' attitude, as i the* )eredealin' )ith an inerior. ust the sae, there is ever* reason to6elieve that, in all pro6a6ilit*, thin's )ould not have turned out as6ad as the* 6ecae had he not allo)ed hisel, in a )a*, to 6edra''ed to the level or plane on )hich P#N#?s personnel had placed

theselves.In vie) o this circustance, e eel that the oral and e3eplar*daa'es collecti6le 6* the plaintifs should 6e reduced to one-hal othe aounts a)arded 6* the lo)er court, that is, to P5//,/// ororal daa'es, and P2//,/// or e3eplar* daa'es, aside rothe attorne*s ees )hich should, lie)ise, 6e reduced to P75,///.9n #pril 22, i'ht

unless the* too the tourist class therein.!ue to pressin' en'a'eents a)aitin' enator $ope@ and his )ie, inthe Anited tates J he had to attend a 6usiness conerence in anFrancisco the ne3t da* and she had to under'o a edical chec-up in?a*o Clinic, ochester, ?innesota, on ?a* 28, i'ht ro "o*o to anFrancisco as tourist passen'ers. enator $ope@ ho)ever ade it clear,as indicated in his letter to P#N-#?s "o*o oEce on that date (D3h.#%, that the* did so Bunder protestB and )ithout pre&udice to urtheraction a'ainst the airline.)*+p)./tuit or daa'es )as thereater 1led 6* enator $ope@ and part*a'ainst P#N-#? on une 2,


12/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

t)o previous instances o alle'ed racial discriination 6* deendanta'ainst Filipinos in avor o B)hiteB passen'ers. aid previousoccasions are )hat alle'edl* happened to (% ;enito al6uena and (2%Cenon . Cervantes and his )ie.#nd ro plaintifs evidence this is )hat alle'edl* happened0

al6uena 6ou'ht a 1rst class ticet ro P#N-#? on #pril 4, i'ht departs )ith plent* o ept* seats 6oth on the 1rstclass and tourist class. "his is due to late cancellation opassen'ers, or 6ecause passen'ers do not sho) up in theairport, and it )as our hope others coe in ro another>i'ht and, thereore, are dela*ed and, thereore, issedtheir connections. "his e3perience o ine, coupled )iththat )ire ro "o*o that the* )ould do ever*thin' possi6lepropted e to )ithhold the inoration, 6ut unortunatel*,instead o the 1rst class seat that I )as hopin' or and )hichI anticipated onl* the tourists class )as open on )hichenator and ?rs. $ope@, ?r. and ?rs. ?onteli6ano )ere

accoodated. ell, I ull* reali@e no) the 'ravit* o *decision in not advisin' enator and ?rs. $ope@, ?r. and?rs. ?onteli6ano nor their a'ents a6out the erroneouscancellation and or )hich I )ould lie the to no) that Ia ver* sorr*.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3M o it )as not *our dut* to noti* en. $ope@ and partiesthat their reservations had 6een cancelled since ?a* 8,


13/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

addition to oral daa'es, e3eplar* or corrective daa'es a* 6eiposed 6* )a* o e3aple or correction or the pu6lic 'ood, in6reach o contract )here the deendant acted in a )anton,raudulent, recless, oppressive or alevolent anner (#rticles 222


14/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

su6itted or decision or ailure o petitioner and counsel to appear.G8H

9n Nove6er ,


15/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

indenit* or death, (2% indenit* or loss o earnin' capacit*, and(4% oral daa'es.

In the present case, respondent heirs o the deceased areentitled to indenit* or the death o ?arie Lrace )hich undercurrent &urisprudence is 13ed at P5/,///.//.G47H

"he a)ard o copensator* daa'es or the loss o thedeceasedSs earnin' capacit* should 6e deleted or lac o 6asis. #s arule, docuentar* evidence should 6e presented to su6stantiate theclai or daa'es or loss o earnin' capacit*. ;* )a* o e3ception,daa'es or loss o earnin' capacit* a* 6e a)arded despite thea6sence o docuentar* evidence )hen (% the deceased is sel-eplo*ed earnin' less than the iniu )a'e under current la6orla)s, and &udicial notice a* 6e taen o the act that in thedeceasedSs line o )or no docuentar* evidence is availa6le0 or (2%the deceased is eplo*ed as a dail* )a'e )orer earnin' less thanthe iniu )a'e under current la6or la)s. G48H

In People v. !co,G4


16/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

Furtherore, the total aount ad&ud'ed a'ainst petitioner shallearn interest at the rate o 2W per annu coputed ro the 1nalit*o this decision until ull* paid.

SO ORDRD.

.R. N-. 1,279 *l 146 199S#LPICIO LINS6 INC.6 petitioner,vs.T8 8ONORA>L CO#RT O APPALS (T;el%: Divisi-$! a$&ACINTA L. PAMALARAN6 respondents.#IASON6J.:

"his is a petition or revie) on certiorariunder ule 5 o the evisedules o Court to reverse the !ecision dated #pril 8, LLOSILLO6J.B

L#A!I99, DND"9 and DIN, all surnaed ?9D, )ereound 'uilt* o urder 6* the trial court or the illin' o alentinoPa'ua* on 22 Fe6ruar*


17/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

alentino on the chest causin' the latter to all to the 'round. "hethree (4% accused persisted in their criinal desi'n and pinned theirvicti do)n )ith their hands and nees. "he* too turns in sta66in'hi a'ain several ties.

#s the sta66in' pro'ressed oeo )as havin' an uno6structedvie) o the occurrence soe ten (/% eters a)a*. #ter the* )erethrou'h )ith alentino the accused turned to oeo and )arned hia'ainst tellin' an*6od* a6out the incident and ordered hi to 'ohoe. "he three (4% ?ore 6rothers then ran a)a*.

hen the ?ore 6rothers )ere alread* arther do)n the riveroeo noticed uanito Faroal standin' a e) eters a)a* ro thecrie scene. #ter seein' alentino alread* lieless oeo let toinor the victis )ie, 6ut on the )a* he et 't. oeo Lersa sohe reported the atter to hi.G2H't. Lersa pursued the accused 6utcould not apprehend the as he alread* 'ot tired. hen he 1red a)arnin' shot the three (4% accused retaliated and 1red three (4% shotsinstead. uanito corro6orated the testion* o oeo re'ardin' theassault e3cept that accordin' to hi it )as onl* Laudioso )hosta66ed the victi )hile his 6rothers er)in and Drnesto onl* assistedin restrainin' the victi.

"he accused, on their part, invoed sel deense. "he version oDrnesto and er)in )as that at a6out si3 ocloc in the evenin' o 22Fe6ruar* i'ht until 't. Lersa 'ave upthe chase throu'h sheer e3haustion, and *ielded onl* )hen the* )erealread* invited or =uestionin' 6* the police ater havin' 6eenidenti1ed as the illers 6* e*e)itnesses oeo ?uralla and uanitoFaroal.

9n the alle'ed inconsistencies in the testionies o theprosecution )itnesses, suEce it to sa* that inconsistencies on inorand trivial atters do not diinish 6ut rather 6olster a )itnessscredi6ilit* as the* in act aniest spontaneit* and lac o schein'.G22HIn other )ords, the* are 6ad'es o truth rather than indiciaoalsehood.G24H"hus the alle'ed contradictions on the relative positionso oeo and alentino )hile the latter )as 6ein' sta66ed, )hether it)as oeo or uanito )ho inored the victis )ie a6out theincident, and )hether uanito )as indeed taen 6* 't. Lersa toCap ?onteclaro ater the incident, are 6ut trivial and inorinconsistencies )hich neither detract ro the essential inte'rit* o

DAMAS 7
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/128820.htm#_edn23


18/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

the prosecutions evidence nor stren'then accused-appellants>a''in' plea o sel-deense. :avin' alread* pleaded sel-deense,accused-appellants could not invoe the alle'ed )eaness o theprosecutions evidence, or, even i the latter )ere )ea ()hich iscertainl* not so in the instant case%, it could not 6e dis6elieved invie) o their open adission o responsi6ilit* or the illin'.G2H

9n the civil lia6ilities o accused-appellants a odi1cation o theaounts a)arded 6* the trial court is in order. ;* )a* o oraldaa'es, the trial court a)arded P//,///.//. ince the a)ard isnot eant to enrich the heirs o the victi 6ut onl* to copensatethe or in&uries sustained to their eelin's )e reduce the aountto P5/,///.// consistent )ith prevailin' &urisprudence. G25H# reductiono the actual daa'es a)arded is lie)ise proper. "he trial courta)arded P28,


19/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

Petitioners )ent to the Court o #ppeals =uestionin' onl* thea)ard o daa'es and attorne*Ss ees.G5H"he* claied that the lo)ercourt erred in+ 1ndin' that the onthl* earnin's o the late :enr*

"u'ade at the tie o his death )as onl* P5//.//0 disre'ardin' theevidence on record sho)in' the onthl* earnin's o the late :enr*

"u'ade0 not considerin' the social, educational and econoic statuso the plaintifs in its assessent o the oral and e3eplar*daa'es0 and settin' the su oP2/,///.// as attorne*Ss ees.GH

espondent Panelco also appealed to the Court o #ppeals rothe decision o the trial court and assailed its rulin' that thene'li'ence o Panelco and its driver )as the pro3iate cause o theaccident.G7H

In its decision dated epte6er 7,


20/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

#ppeals aniestl* overlooed certain relevant acts not disputed 6*the parties and )hich, i properl* considered, )ould &usti* a diferentconclusion0 and, (:!;:e'e %:e $&i$gs - a0% - %:e C-*'% -Aeals a'e 0-$%'a' %- %:-se - %:e %'ial 0-*'%, or are ereconclusions )ithout citation o speci1c evidence, or )here the actsset orth 6* the petitioner are not disputed 6* the respondent, or)here the 1ndin's o act o the Court o #ppeals are preised on thea6sence o evidence and are contradicted 6* the evidence on record.G


21/21

TRANSPORTATION LAW

M #nd )hen *ou arrive at the Panelco copound this&eep )as alread* read* to 6e drivenU

# It )as in the otor pool )e )ere checin' up.M ;ut *ou *oursel did not 'o to the otor pool to 'et

the &eepU# I &ust see the &eep 6ut I did not 'o under the &eep, sir.M ou ean to sa* that the &eep )as in an elevated >at

(sic% or at the tie )hen *ou sa) it at the Panelcocopound 6ein' checed upU

# Its not in the elevated place 6ut it )as in the Panelcocopound, I a looin' or the Chie ?echanicchecin' up the &eep. I )as looin' at the &eep6ein' checed up 6* the Chie ?echanic, sir.

M :o) an* echanics )ere attendin' this rover &eepat the tie *ou )ere looin' at the &eepU

# "he* )ere an* 6ut )ho )as looin' ater )as theChie ?echanic, sir.

333 333333

M #nd these echanics o the Panelco )ere helpin' orattendin' the Chie ?echanicU

# I do not no), sir, 6ecause the* )ere doin'soethin'.

M o all these persons )ere )orin' on the rover &eep, isthat correctU

# No, sir.G4H(sic%hat )as aditted )as the act that it )as his 1rst tie to

drive said vehicleG45Hand that he did not no) )hether or not thevehicle )as re'istered at the tie o the accident.

M 333 ou are a)are that the rover &eep )as notre'istered or that *ear

Transpo v. Damages

Documents

Transcript of Transpo v. Damages