SECOND DIVISION.
.
PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
127473
December 8, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
JUDY AMOR, JANE GAMIL,
MINORS GIAN CARLO
AMOR REPRESENTED BY
ATTY. OWEN AMOR,
AND CARLO
BENITEZ
REPRESENTED BY JOSEPHINE BENITEZ,
Respondents.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before
us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision[1]
dated August 12, 1996, in CA-G.R. CV No. 38327[2]
and the Resolution dated November 15, 1996 denying the motion for
reconsideration
of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (petitioner for brevity).
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
Judy Amor, Jane Gamil, minor Gian Carlo Amor, represented by his
father,
Atty. Owen Amor, and, minor Carlo Benitez, represented by his mother,
Josephine
Benitez, filed with the Regional Trial Court (Branch 53), Sorsogon,
Sorsogon,
a Complaint[3]
for damages against petitioner due to the latter's failure to honor
their
confirmed tickets.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of their
claim, private respondents presented evidence establishing the
following
facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondent
Judy Amor purchased three confirmed plane tickets for her and her
infant
son, Gian Carlo Amor as well as her sister Jane Gamil for the May 8,
1988,
7:10 a.m. flight, PR 178, bound for Manila from defendant's branch
office
in Legaspi City. Judy Amor, a dentist and a member of the Board of
Directors
of the Sorsogon Dental Association, was scheduled to attend the
National
Convention of the Philippine Dental Association from May 8 to 14, 1988
at the Philippine International Convention Center.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 8, 1988, Judy
with Gian, Jane and minor Carlo Benitez, nephew of Judy and Jane,
arrived
at the Legaspi Airport at 6:20 a.m. for PR 178. Carlo Benitez was
supposed
to use the confirmed ticket of a certain Dra. Emily Chua.[5]
They were accompanied by Atty. Owen Amor and the latter's cousin,
Salvador
Gonzales who fell in line at the check-in counter with four persons
ahead
of him and three persons behind him[6]
while plaintiff Judy went to the office of the station manager to
request
that minor plaintiff Carlo Benitez be allowed to use the ticket of Dra.
Chua.[7]
While waiting for his turn, Gonzales was asked by Lloyd Fojas, the
check-in
clerk on duty, to approach the counter. Fojas wrote something on the
tickets
which Gonzales later read as "late check-in 7:05". When Gonzales' turn
came, Fojas gave him the tickets of private respondents Judy, Jane and
Gian and told him to proceed to the cashier to make arrangements.[8]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Salvador then went
to Atty. Amor and told him about the situation. Atty. Amor pleaded with
Fojas, pointing out that it is only 6:45 a.m., but the latter did not
even
look at him or utter any word. Atty. Amor then tried to plead with
Delfin
Canonizado and George Carranza, employees of petitioner, but still to
no
avail. Private respondents were not able to board said flight. The
plane
left at 7:30 a.m., twenty minutes behind the original schedule.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
went to the bus terminals hoping to catch a ride for Manila. Finding
none,
they went back to the airport and tried to catch an afternoon flight.[10]
Unfortunately, the 2:30 p.m. flight, PR 278, was cancelled due to
"aircraft
situation".[11]
Private respondents were told to wait for the 5:30 p.m. flight, PR 180.
They checked-in their bags and were told to hand in their tickets.
Later,
a PAL employee at the check-in counter called out the name of private
respondent
minor Carlo Benitez. Plaintiff Judy approached the counter and was told
by the PAL personnel that they cannot be accommodated. Fojas who was
also
at the counter then removed the boarding passes inserted in private
respondents'
tickets as well as the tags from their luggages.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Manuel Baltazar, a former
Acting Manager of petitioner in Legaspi City in May 1988, testified
that
based on his investigation, the private respondents, although confirmed
passengers, were not able to board PR 178 in the morning of May 8, 1988
because there were "go-show" or "waitlisted" and non-revenue passengers
who were accommodated in said flight. He also noted that there was
overbooking
for PR 178.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, petitioner
contends that private respondents are not entitled to their claim for
damages
because they were late in checking-in for PR 178; and that they were
only
chance or waitlisted passengers for PR 180 and were not accommodated
because
all confirmed passengers of the flight had checked-in. In support
thereof,
petitioner presented Lloyd Fojas, who testified, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the morning of May
8, 1988, he was on duty at the check-in counter of the Legaspi Airport.
He was the one who attended to the tickets of private respondents which
were tendered by Salvador Gonzales at 7:05 a.m. when the counter was
already
closed. The clock at the check-in counter showed that it was already
7:05
and so he told Gonzales that they are already late and wrote "late
check-in,
7:05" on private respondents' tickets. The flight was scheduled to
leave
at 7:10 a.m. and checking-in is allowed only until 30 minutes before
departure
time. At the time private respondents went to the check-in counter,
passengers
were already leaving the pre-departure area and going towards the plane
and there were no more passengers in the check-in area, not even
waitlisted
passengers. The baggages of the passengers have been loaded in the
aircraft.
Gonzales left and later came back with Atty. Amor who pleaded that
plaintiffs
be accommodated in the flight. He told Atty. Amor to go to his
supervisor
to re-book the tickets because there were no more boarding passes and
it
was already time for boarding the plane. Atty. Amor then left the
counter.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On cross-examination,
Fojas testified that he did not know how many waitlisted or non-revenue
passengers were accommodated or issued boarding passes in the 7:00 a.m.
and in the afternoon flight of May 8, 1988.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, the RTC
rendered judgment upholding the evidence presented by private
respondents,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) ordering the
defendant
to reimburse the plaintiffs the amount of P1,171.60 representing the
purchase
price of the four (4) plane tickets;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) condemning the
defendant to pay plaintiffs Judy Amor and Jane Gamil the amount of
P250,000.00
each as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus
P100,000.00
as actual damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) for the
defendant
to pay plaintiffs the amount of P30,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus
P500.00
for every appearance, or a total of P10,500.00 for 21 actual appearance
(sic) in court, P2,000.00 as incidental litigation expenses, and to pay
the cost of the suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[16]
Aggrieved, petitioner
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA for brevity) which affirmed the
judgment
of the trial court in toto and denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition
of PAL, raising the following issues:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
WHETHER PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS
WERE LATE CHECKED-IN PASSENGERS AND WHETHER THE FAILURE OF AN AIRLINE
TO
ACCOMMODATE A PASSENGER WHO CHECKED IN LATE IS ACTIONABLE SO AS TO
ENTITLE
THEM TO DAMAGES.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO
THAT
PETITIONER IS LIABLE, WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AWARDED TO PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS IS EXCESSIVE, UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNREASONABLE.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of the first
issue, petitioner argues:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) While
ordinarily,
the findings of the CA are accepted as conclusive by this Court, there
are instances when the Court may make its own findings such as when the
appellate court based its findings on speculation, surmises or
conjectures.
The appellate court erroneously gave too much reliance on the testimony
of Baltazar who is a disgruntled former employee and relative of
private
respondent Amor. He was not present at the time of the incident.
Baltazar
merely interpreted the flight manifest and made a lot of speculations
which
is undeserving of attention and merit.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Its employees are
adequately trained and service oriented that they would not dare
violate
company rules and regulations. They are aware of the drastic
consequences
that may befall them as what happened to Baltazar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) As to PR 180,
private
respondents were merely waitlisted in said flight hence it was known to
them that their accommodation in said flight was dependent upon the
failure
of any confirmed passenger to check-in within the regulation check-in
time.
Unfortunately for them, all the confirmed passengers on PR 180
checked-in
on time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of the
second
issue, petitioner contends:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) The
award
of actual, moral and exemplary damages to private respondents have no
factual
nor legal basis at all. Its failure to accommodate private respondents
on Flights PR 178, 278 and 180 was not motivated by bad faith or malice
but due to a situation which private respondents brought upon
themselves.
It had exerted utmost and sincere effort to lessen the "agony and
predicament"
of private respondents. They immediately made protective bookings for
private
respondents on the 2:30 p.m. flight, PR 278, which unfortunately was
cancelled
due to "aircraft situation". Upon cancellation of PR 278, they made
special
arrangements to enable private respondents to have first priority in PR
180 in case of a "no show" confirmed passenger.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) To award
damages
to a passenger who checked-in late would place a premium or reward for
breach of contract that would encourage passengers to intentionally
check-in
late with the expectation of an award of damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Moral and
exemplary
damages as well as attorney's fees are not recoverable in damage suits
predicated on breach of contract of carriage unless there is evidence
of
fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier. Even assuming
arguendo
that petitioner is liable for damages, the amounts awarded in favor of
private respondents are excessive, unreasonable and unconscionable. The
primary object of an award of damages in a civil action is compensation
or indemnity or to repair the wrong that has been done. Damages awarded
should be equal to, and commensurate with, the injury sustained.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4) It was
erroneous
to award damages in favor of Jane Gamil when she never appeared before
the trial court to prove her claim for damages.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their Comment,
private
respondents stress that the fact they were not late in checking-in for
PR 178 has been substantially established in the hearing before the
trial
court and affirmed by the CA. They maintain that, contrary to the
assertion
of petitioner, they have established their case not only by a
preponderance
of evidence but by proof that is more than what is required by law
justifying
the factual findings of the trial court and the CA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
point out that since the issues raised by this petition are factual and
do not fall under exceptional circumstances, there is nothing left to
be
reviewed or examined by the Supreme Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the damages awarded,
private respondents contend that the amounts awarded are not excessive,
unconscionable or unreasonable because of the high-handed, malicious,
dictatorial
and savage act of petitioner's employee which caused them untold mental
anguish, excruciating pain, public contempt and ridicule, sleepless
nights
and other forms of moral suffering.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Reply, petitioner
reiterates its earlier points and questions once more the credibility
of
private respondents' witnesses, particularly Atty. Owen Amor, Salvador
Gonzales and Manuel Baltazar who are related to the respondents by
blood
or affinity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their Rejoinder,
private respondents aver that the findings of facts of the courts a quo
were based not only on the testimonies of their witnesses but also on
petitioner's
own employee, Lloyd Fojas, who testified that there were non-revenue,
go-show
and waitlisted passengers who were accommodated in PR 178. They
reiterate
their position that where there is a question regarding the credibility
of witnesses, the findings of trial courts are generally not disturbed
by appellate courts. Finally, as to the damages awarded, private
respondents
claim that there was substantial basis in awarding such amounts.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evidently, in resolving
the two issues raised in the present petition, it is inevitable and
most
crucial that we first determine the question whether or not the CA
erred
in upholding the RTC ruling that private respondents were late in
checking-in.
Both issues call for a review of the factual findings of the lower
courts.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In petitions for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is
that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon
by this Court.[18]
Factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on us
especially
when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court.[19]
This is because it is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence
all over again.[20]
However, this general rule admits of exceptions, to wit:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) where there is
grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is
manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of
Appeals
was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings
are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings,
went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the
admissions
of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and
which,
if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (h)
where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
those
of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of
specific
evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not
disputed
by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals
are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence
on record.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner invokes exception
(b).cralaw:red
As to the first issue:
Whether or not private respondents checked-in on time for PR 178. The
determination
of this issue is necessary because it is expressly stipulated in the
airline
tickets issued to private respondents that PAL will consider the
reserved
seat cancelled if the passenger fails to check-in at least thirty
minutes
before the published departure time.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful review
of the records, we find no reason to disturb the affirmance by the CA
of
the findings of the trial court that the private respondents have
checked-in
on time; that they reached the airport at 6:20 a.m., based on the
testimonies
of private respondent Judy Amor, and witnesses Salvador Gonzales and
Atty.
Owen Amor who were consistent in their declarations on the witness
stand
and corroborated one another's statements; and that the testimony of
petitioner's
lone witness, Lloyd Fojas is not sufficient to overcome private
respondents'
evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have repeatedly held
that the truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the
quality of their testimonies.[23]
In the present case, it cannot be said that the quality of the
testimony
of petitioner's lone witness is greater than those of the private
respondents.
Fojas testified that when respondents went to the check-in counter,
there
were no more persons in that area since all the passengers already
boarded
the plane.[24]
However, the testimonies of Manuel Baltazar and Judy Amor together with
the manifest, Exhibits "E", "E-1" and "E-2", point to the fact that
many
passengers were not able to board said flight, including confirmed
passengers,
because of overbooking.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is a well-entrenched
principle that absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion or any
palpable
error in its findings, this Court will not question the probative
weight
accorded by the lower courts to the various evidence presented by the
parties.
As we explained in Superlines Transportation Co. Inc., vs. ICC Leasing
& Financing Corporation:[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court is not tasked
to calibrate and assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the
parties during trial all over again x x x So long as the
findings
of facts of the Court of Appeals are consistent with or are not
palpably
contrary to the evidence on record, this Court shall decline to embark
on a review on the probative weight of the evidence of the parties.[27]
(Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is also well established
that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses is
entitled
to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal except on very
strong
and cogent grounds.[28]
Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed any
error
in upholding the testimonies of private respondents' witnesses. We find
that the CA committed no reversible error in sustaining the findings of
facts of the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
who had confirmed tickets for PR 178 were bumped-off in favor of
non-revenue
passengers. Witness Manuel Baltazar, a former Acting Manager of
petitioner,
evaluated the manifest for PR 178 and found that there were non-revenue
passengers allowed to go on board. He specifically identified the
family
of Labanda, a certain Mr. Luz, petitioner's former branch manager, and,
a certain Mr. Moyo.[29]
Although petitioner had every opportunity to refute such testimony, it
failed to present any countervailing evidence. Instead, petitioner
merely
focused on assailing the credibility of Baltazar on the ground that he
was a disgruntled employee and a relative of private respondents. Apart
from the bare allegations in petitioner's pleadings, no evidence was
ever
presented in court to substantiate its claim that Baltazar was a
disgruntled
employee that impelled him to testify against petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to his relationship
with private respondents, this Court has repeatedly held that a
witness'
relationship to the victim does not automatically affect the veracity
of
his or her testimony.[30]
While this principle is often applied in criminal cases, we deem that
the
same principle may apply in this case, albeit civil in nature. If a
witness'
relationship with a party does not ipso facto render him a biased
witness
in criminal cases where the quantum of evidence required is proof
beyond
reasonable doubt, there is no reason why the same principle should not
apply in civil cases where the quantum of evidence is only
preponderance
of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As aptly observed by
the CA which we hereby adopt:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ironically for the
defendant, aside from appellant's assumption that Baltazar could be a
disgruntled
former employee of their company and could be biased (which same reason
could be attributed to Lloyd Fojas) due to a distant relationship with
the plaintiff, it offered no proof or evidence to rebut, demean and
contradict
the substance of the testimony of Baltazar on the crucial point that
plaintiffs-appellees
were bumped off to accommodate non-revenue, waitlisted or go-show
passengers.
On this fact alone, defendant's position weakens while credibly
establishing
that indeed plaintiffs arrived at the airport on time to check-in for
Flight
PR 178. Further emphasis must be made that Lloyd Fojas even affirmed in
court that he can not recall how many PR 178 boarding passes he had at
the check-in counter because management has authority to accommodate in
any flight and correspondingly issue boarding passes to non-revenue
passengers
(pages 15–16, TSN, January 24, 1990).[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, petitioner,
through its lone witness Fojas, could only answer during his
examination
on the witness stand that he is unable to recall the circumstances
recommending
the issuances of boarding passes to waitlisted and that it is the
management
which has the authority to issue boarding passes to non-revenue
passengers.[32]
Even in the afternoon flight, PR 180. Fojas could not squarely deny
that
confirmed paying passengers were bumped-off in favor of non-revenue
ones.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The CA likewise correctly
concluded that there was overbooking in the morning flight on the basis
of the testimony of private respondents' witness Manuel Baltazar, to
wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY.
CALICA:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q There was a
memorandum
order of the PAL prohibiting overbooking. Are you aware of CAB
Regulation
No. 7 on boarding passengers?
WITNESS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. CALICA:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You will agree
with
me that this regulation allows only overbooking by 10%?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, that is a
government
regulation and the company regulation is different.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q But in the
morning
flight of May 8, 1988, granting that the government regulation allows
only
10% overbooking, can you tell the Court from the manifest itself
whether
it exceeded the 10% overbooking allowed by the regulation reckoning
from
the 109 passenger seater?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A With the
capacity
of 109, 10% of it will be 10 or 11, so if we add this it will not
exceed
120 passengers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q In that flight
how
many were confirmed?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A In that flight
those
passengers that were confirmed have a total of 126.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Even if when
allowed
the government regulation of overbooking, you will still exceed the
allowable
overbooking number?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes.[34]
(Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This fact of
overbooking,
again, was not adequately refuted by petitioner's evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellate
court
aptly sustained the trial court in giving probative weight to the
testimony
of private respondent Judy Amor that there were other passengers who
were
not accommodated in flight PR 178, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: And how about
you,
what did you do when you arrived at the Legaspi Airport at 6:20 while
Salvador
Gonzales was at the check-in counter to pay the tickets?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: I went to the
Office
of the OIC Manager at the right side of the Legaspi Terminal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Who was that
Manager?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: I was able to
know
his name as Delfin Canonizado.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: There were also
people
there near the table of Mr. Canonizado, do you know what were they
doing?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: They were
making
complaints also because they were also scheduled for flight on that
day.
They were not accommodated.[35]
(Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have noted an
inconsistency
in the testimony of private respondents' witness, Salvador Gonzales in
the direct and cross-examinations. In his direct testimony, Gonzales
stated
that while he was waiting in line at the check-in counter, with four
persons
still ahead of him, Lloyd Fojas asked him to approach the counter, took
private respondents' tickets and wrote something on them. It was only
later
on when his turn came, that he found out that what Fojas wrote on the
tickets
was "late check-in 7:05". On cross-examination, Gonzales testified that
it was only after the four persons ahead of him were accommodated that
Fojas wrote on the tickets "late check-in 7:05". However, upon
clarificatory
questions propounded by the trial court, Gonzales was able to clarify
that
Fojas had written the time on the ticket before the four persons ahead
of him were entertained at the counter.[36]
Understandably, the lower courts found no cogent reason to discredit
the
testimony of witness Gonzales.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have held in an earlier
case that a witness may contradict himself on the circumstances of an
act
or different acts due to a long series of questions on
cross-examination
during which the mind becomes tired to such a degree that the witness
does
not understand what he is testifying about, especially if the
questions,
in their majority are leading and tend to make him ratify a former
contrary
declaration.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, the findings
of fact of the trial court, as sustained by the CA, have to be
respected.
As we have consistently held, trial courts enjoy the unique advantage
of
observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of
witnesses
as they give their testimonies. Thus, assignment to declarations on the
witness stand is best done by them who, unlike appellate magistrates,
can
weigh firsthand the testimony of a witness.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the second issue
as to whether or not the damages awarded are excessive, we rule in the
affirmative. The Court of Appeals committed an error in sustaining the
ruling of the trial court requiring petitioner to reimburse private
respondents
the amount of four plane tickets, including the ticket for private
respondent
minor Carlo Benitez.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As admitted by private
respondent Judy in her testimony, the only confirmed tickets for the
morning
flight (PR 178) are the tickets for herself, her infant son, Gian Carlo
and her sister Jane Gamil. They had another ticket which Judy bought
for
a certain Dra. Emily Chua who backed out and whose ticket they had
intended
to be transferred to Carlo Benitez.[39]
Although it is clearly stated in the ticket that the same is
non-transferrable,[40]
Judy testified that a PAL employee issued another ticket in the name of
Carlo Benitez in lieu of the ticket issued for Dra. Chua. However, an
examination
of the ticket issued, Exhibit "C", discloses that it does not state
therein
the flight number or time of departure. Consequently, in the absence of
competent evidence, private respondent Carlo Benitez' complaint should
be dismissed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find no justifiable
reason that warrants the award of P100,000.00 as actual damages in
favor
of all private respondents. Article 2199 of the Civil Code, provides
that
actual or compensatory damages may only be given for such pecuniary
loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved. We explained in Chan vs. Maceda[41]
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x x A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures
or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon
competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and
on
the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must
point
out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever
compensatory
or actual damages are borne.[42]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All that was proved
by herein private respondents was the amount of the purchase price of
the
plane tickets of private respondents Judy, Jane and Gian Carlo. Only
said
amounts should therefore be considered in awarding actual damages. As
borne
by the records, private respondent Judy Amor paid P466.00 each for her
ticket and that of Jane; while she paid P46.60 for her infant Gian
Carlo.[43]
The amount of actual damages should therefore be reduced to P978.60,
payable
to private respondent Judy Amor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It should be stressed
that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the
expense
of the defendant but are awarded only to allow the former to obtain
means,
diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering
he has undergone due to the defendant's culpable action.[44]
We emphasized in Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals that
moral
damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to somehow
alleviate
the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and
similar
injury unjustly caused to a person. We have held that even though moral
damages are incapable of pecuniary computation, it should nevertheless
be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted.
And,
to be recoverable, such damage must be the proximate result of a
wrongful
act or omission the factual basis for which is satisfactorily
established
by the aggrieved party.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
private respondent Judy Amor testified that she felt "ashamed" when the
plane took off and they were left at the airport since there were many
people there who saw them including dentists like her. She also related
that she missed the Philippine Dental Convention scheduled on the 8th
of
May, 1988 where she was supposed to attend as a dentist and officer of
the Sorsogon Dental Association. They tried to look for buses bound for
Manila but missed those scheduled in the morning. They went back to the
airport but still failed to take an afternoon flight. Hence, she was
forced
to take a bus that evening for Manila which did not allow her to sleep
that night.[46]
Private respondent Judy however did not miss the whole convention as
she
was able to leave on the night of the first day of the week long
convention. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While there is no hard
and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral
damages,
generally, the amount awarded should be commensurate with the actual
loss
or injury suffered.[47]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The CA erred in upholding
the trial court's award of moral damages based on Judy Amor's claim
that
there was a denigration of her social and financial standing. Private
respondent
Judy failed to show that she was treated rudely or disrespectfully by
petitioner's
employees despite her stature as a dentist. As we held in Kierulf vs.
Court
of Appeals.[48]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The social and financial
standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. The
factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and
rough"
reception, no "menacing attitude," no "supercilious manner," no
"abusive
language and highly scornful reference" was given her. The social and
financial
standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding
moral
damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite
the offender's knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.[49]
(Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, we hold
that private respondent Judy Amor is entitled to moral damages. In a
number
of cases, we have pronounced that air carriage is a business possessed
with special qualities. In Singson vs. Court of Appeals,[50]
we explained that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A contract of air carriage
is a peculiar one. Imbued with public interest, common carriers are
required
by law to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can
provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due
regard for all the circumstances. A contract to transport passengers is
quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation.
And this because its business is mainly with the traveling public. It
invites
people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract
of carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public
duty.
Failure of the carrier to observe this high degree of care and
extraordinary
diligence renders it liable for any damage that may be sustained by its
passengers.[51]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As the lower courts
have found, evidence positively show that petitioner has accommodated
waitlisted
and non-revenue passengers and had overbooked more than what is allowed
by law, to the prejudice of private respondents who had confirmed
tickets.
Overbooking amounts to bad faith[52]
and therefore petitioner is liable to pay moral damages to respondent
Judy
Amor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering all the
foregoing, we deem that the award of P250,000.00 as moral damages in
favor
of private respondent Judy Amor is exorbitant. Where the damages
awarded
are far too excessive compared to the actual losses sustained by the
aggrieved
party, the same should be reduced to a more reasonable amount.[53]
We find the amount of P100,000.00 to be sufficient, just and
reasonable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We consider the award
of actual damages in favor of private respondent Jane Gamil to be
inappropriate
considering the testimony of Judy Amor that she was the one who paid
for
the tickets.[54]
Likewise, the appellate court erred in sustaining the award of moral
damages
in favor of Jane Gamil as she never testified in court. It has been
held
that where the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as
to his social humiliation, wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages
cannot be recovered."[55]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the award of exemplary
damages, Article 2234 of the Civil
Code provides that the claimant must show that he would be entitled
to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may
consider
the question whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, private
respondent Jane Gamil, not being entitled to actual and moral damages,
is not entitled to exemplary damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of exemplary
damages in favor of private respondent Judy Amor is warranted in this
case.[56]
Waitlisted and non-revenue passengers were accommodated while private
respondent
Judy Amor who had fully paid her fare and was a confirmed passenger was
unduly deprived of enplaning. Petitioner was guilty of overbooking its
flight to the prejudice of its confirmed passengers. This practice
cannot
be countenanced especially considering that the business of air
carriage
is imbued with public character. We have ruled that where in breaching
the contract of carriage, the airline is shown to have acted in bad
faith,
as in this case,[57]
the award of exemplary damages in addition to moral and actual damages
is proper.[58]
However, as in the matter of the moral damages awarded by the trial
court,
we consider the amount of P200,000.00 as exemplary damages to be far
too
excessive. The amount of P25,000.00 is just and proper.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find the award of
attorney's fees in this case to be in order since it is well settled
that
the same may be awarded when the defendant's act or omission has
compelled
the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect
his interest.[59]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, we affirm
the decision of the Court of Appeals with the following MODIFICATIONS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Petitioner is ordered
to pay private respondent Judy Amor the amount of P978.60 as and for
actual
damages; P100,000.00 as moral damages; P25,000.00 as exemplary damages;
and attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000.00 plus P500.00 for every
appearance of private respondent's lawyer, or a total of P10,500.00 for
21 actual appearances in court; P2,000.00 as incidental litigation
expenses;
and costs of suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The claim for damages
of private respondent Jane Gamil is DENIED for lack of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The complaint of
private respondent Carlo Benitez is DISMISSED for lack of cause of
action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No pronouncement as
to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo,
Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. and concurred in by Justices
Arturo
B. Buena and Jose C. Dela Rama.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Entitled, "Judy Amor, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. Philippine
Airlines,
Inc., Defendant-Appellant".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 5390.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, Judy Amor, October 4, 1989, pp. 6, 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 3–4, 6, 23–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., pp. 4–6; TSN, Salvador Gonzales, September 27, 1879, pp. 6–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, Judy Amor, October 4, 1989, pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, Salvador Gonzales, September 27, 1989, pp. 6–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, Owen Amor, September 28, 1989, pp. 5–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, Judy Amor, October 4, 1989, pp. 12–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, Lloyd Fojas, November 29, 1989, p. 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, Judy Amor, October 4, 1980, pp. 49–50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
TSN, October 25, 1980, pp. 30, 56–57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, November 29, 1989, pp. 4–19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, January 24, 1990, pp. 15–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Records, p. 251.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Rollo, p. 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Vicente vs. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 136112, January 28,
2003;
Almira vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115966, March 20, 2003.
[19]
Lantin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127141, April 30, 2003; Sevilla
vs.
Sevilla, G.R. No. 150179, April 30, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Potenciano vs. Reynoso, G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Twin Towers Condominium Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123552,
February
27, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Exhibits "A" to "D".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People vs. Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404-86, January 28, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, November 29, 1989, pp. 13–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, October 25, 1989, pp. 56–57; October 4, 1989, pp. 5–7; and
September
28, 1989, pp. 32–33.
[26]
G.R. No. 150673, February 28, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Bayne Adjusters and Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 323 SCRA 231, 236
(2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
TSN, October 25, 1989, pp. 33, 35–36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, 350 SCRA 414, 421 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Rollo, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
TSN, January 24, 1990, pp. 15–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, November 29, 1989, pp. 22–23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
TSN, October 25, 1989, pp. 56–57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
TSN, October 4, 1989, pp. 5–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, September 27, 1989, pp. 6–8, 24–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People vs. Limob, G.R. No. 24810, 49 Phil, 94, 99–100 (1926).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Tugade vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120874, July 31, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
TSN, October 4, 1989, p. 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Exhibits "C", "3".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
G.R. No. 142591, April 3, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Exhibits "A", "1"; "B", "2"; "D", "4".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120262, 275 SCRA
621,
630 (1997).
[45]
G.R. No. 126908, January 16, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
TSN, October 4, 1980, pp. 10–12, 16–17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118325, 267 SCRA 158, 173
(1997).
[48]
G.R. No. 99301, 269 SCRA 433 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Id., at p. 446.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
G.R. No. 119995, 282 SCRA 149 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
Id., at p. 153. See also Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 120262, 275 SCRA 621, 626 (1997).
[52]
Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 23, 31 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 83768,
182 SCRA 899, 907 (1990).
[54]
TSN, October 4, 1989, pp. 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
Pan American World Airways vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
68988,
June 21, 1990, 186 SCRA 687, 690 (1990).
[56]
Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118325, 267 SCRA 158, 173
(1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
See Note 52.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
Singson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119995, 282 SCRA 149, 163
(1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
Id., p. 165.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|