ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 144178. October 23, 2000]

PAL, INC. vs. CENEN G. DIZON

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 23 2000.

G.R. No. 144178 (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Cenen G. Dizon.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner from this Court's Resolution dated September 27, 2000 denying the motion for extension to file petition for review for failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and the Petition for Review subsequently filed.

In the Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner's counsel alleges that contrary to the instructions given to its messenger to file and serve the motion personally as the addresses of the opposing counsel, the Court of Appeals and this Court were located in accessible places in Metro Manila so that an explanation required under Section 11, Rule 13 was no longer necessary, its messenger served copies of the motion for extension to the parties by registered mail who allegedly thought that it was already the last day for filing the same. To deny the motion on the basis of honest oversight on the part of counsel's messenger in using the wrong form of Affidavit of Service which does not contain the required explanation on the mode of service would be unfortunate since the petition for review subsequently filed presented meritorious arguments. Petitioner prays that this Court's Resolution be reconsidered in the interest of substantial justice.

The motion for reconsideration is untenable. A lawyer owes his client full devotion to his genuine interests, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability (Suarez vs. CA, 220 SCRA 274). Counsel should not hide behind the alleged mistake of its messenger since the filing of the pleadings and the requirements thereto is the sole responsibility of counsel.

Consequently, the denial of the motion for extension results in the denial of the petition itself for being filed out of time. In any event, even if the petition is admitted, the same should be denied as the Court does not find any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated December 11, 1998 and Resolution dated July 24, 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration. The main issue in the petition is whether there was a valid contract of carriage between petitioner and respondent wherein a breach thereof would warrant the award of damages.

From the petition, it appears that respondent purchased from petitioner a one-way ticket for San Francisco, California. Respondent was denied boarding by petitioner when he showed up at NAIA pre-departure area without a ticket for a return flight to the Philippines. Thus, respondent filed action for damages. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of respondent ordering petitioner to pay P200,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000 as exemplary damages, P50,000 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with modification by deleting the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was breach of contract of carriage warranting the award of damages. It opined that PAL was chargeable with the duty and responsibility of informing the passenger of conditions prescribed in his ticket or at least to ascertain that passenger reads them before he accepts his ticket. When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, a contract of carriage arises and the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. We do not find any reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with FINALITY, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Petition for Review is DENIED for having been filed out of time. In any event, even is the petition is admitted, it would still be denied, as petitioner failed to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE