FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 135802. March 3, 2000]
PRISCILLA L.
TAN, petitioner, vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
Petitioner Priscilla L. Tan appeals via
certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals[1] affirming with modification[2] the decision of the trial court,[3] ordering respondent to pay petitioner the following
amounts: (1) P15,000.00, as actual damages; (2) P100,000.00, as moral damages;
(3) P50,000.00, as exemplary damages; (4) P30,000.00, as and for attorney's
fees; and (6) costs.
The case before the Court traces its roots
from an action for damages for breach of contract of air carrige for failure to
deliver petitioner's baggages on the date of her arrival filed on June 29, 1994
with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 150 against respondent Northwest
Airlines, Inc., a foreign corporation engaged in the business of air
transportation.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On May 31, 1994, Priscilla L. Tan and Connie
Tan boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 29 in Chicago, U. S. A. bound for the
Philippines, with a stop-over at Detroit, U. S. A. They arrived at the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on June 1, 1994 at about 10:40 in the
evening.
Upon their arrival, petitioner and her
companion Connie Tan found that their baggages were missing. They returned to
the airport in the evening of the following day and they were informed that
their baggages might still be in another plane in Tokyo, Japan.
On June 3, 1994, they recovered their
baggages and discovered that some of its contents were destroyed and soiled.
Claiming that they "suffered mental
anguish, sleepless nights and great damage" because of Northwest's failure
to inform them in advance that their baggages would not be loaded on the same
flight they boarded and because of their delayed arrival, they demanded from
Northwest Airlines compensation for the damages they suffered. On June 15, 1994
and June 22, 1994, petitioner sent demand letter to Northwest Airlines, but the
latter did not respond. Hence, the filing of the case with the regional trial
court.
In its answer to the complaint, respondent
Northwest Airlines did not deny that the baggages of petitioners were not
loaded on Northwest Flight 29. Petitioner's baggages could not be carried on
the same flight because of "weight and balance restrictions."
However, the baggages were loaded in another Northwest Airlines flight, which
arrived in the evening of June 2, 1994.
When petitioner received her baggages in
damaged condition, Northwest offered to either (1) reimburse the cost or repair
of the bags; or (2) reimburse the cost for the purchase of new bags, upon
submission of receipts.
After due trial, on June 10, 1996, the trial
court rendered decision finding respondent Northwest Airlines, Inc. liable for
damages, as follows:
"WHEREFORE,
judgement is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the
following amounts:
"1.
P15,000.00, as actual damages;
"2.
P100,000.00, as moral damages;
"3.
P50,000.00, as exemplary damages;
"4.
P30,000.00, as and for attorney's fees and
"5. Costs.
"SO ORDERED.
"Given this
10th day of June, 1996 at Makati City.
"ERNA
FALLORAN ALIPOSA
"Judge"[4]
Respondent Northwest Airlines, Inc. appealed
from the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals contending that the
court a quo erred in finding it guilty of breach of contract of carriage
and of willful misconduct and awarded damages which had no basis in fact or
were otherwise excessive.
On September 30, 1998, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its decision partially granting the appeal by deleting the award of
moral and exemplary damages and reducing the attorney's fees, specifically
providing that:
"WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal is hereby GRANTED partially. The
Decision of the lower court dated June 10, 1996 is AFFIRMED with the
modification that the award of moral and exemplary damages is deleted and the
amount of attorney's fees is reduced to ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
"No
pronouncement as to costs.
"SO
ORDERED."[5]
Hence, this appeal.[6]
The issue is whether respondent is liable
for moral and exemplary damages for willful misconduct and breach of the
contract of air carriage.
The petition is without merit.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that
respondent was not guilty of willful misconduct. "For willful misconduct
to exist there must be a showing that the acts complained of were impelled by
an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of one's
rights. It must be evidenced by a flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper
conduct."[7]
Contrary to petitioner's contention, there
was nothing in the conduct of respondent which showed that they were motivated
by malice or bad faith in loading her baggages on another plane. Due to weight
and balance restrictions, as a safety measure, respondent airline had to
transport the baggages on a different flight, but with the same expected date
and time of arrival in the Philippines. As aptly explained by respondent:
"To ensure
the safety of each flight, Northwest's personnel determine every flight's
compliance with "weight and balance restrictions." They check the
factors like weight of the aircraft used for the flight gas input, passenger
and crew load, baggage weight, all in relation to the wind factor anticipated
on the flight. If there is an overload, i.e., a perceived safety risk, the
aircraft's load will be reduced by off-loading cargo, which will then be placed
on the next available flight."[8]
It is admitted that respondent failed to
deliver petitioner's luggages on time. However, there was no showing of malice
in such failure. By its concern for safety, respondent had to ship the baggages
in another flight with same date of arrival.
Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly held
that respondent did not act in bad faith.[9]
"Bad faith does not simply connnote bad
judgment or negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or
interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud."[10]
"Where in breaching the contract of
carriage the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in
bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include
moral and exemplary damages."[11]
Consequently, we have no reason to reverse
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for lack of merit.
The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals deleting, however, the
award of attorney's fees.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno,
Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
[1] In CA-G. R. CV No. 54438, decision promulgated on September 30, 1998, Justice Martin Jr., ponente, and Justices Callejo, Sr. and Umali, concurring.
[2] The Court of Appeals deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and reduced the attorney's fees to P10,000.00.
[3] In Civil Case No. 94-2042, Regional Trial Court, Branch 150, Makati City, Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa, presiding.
[4] Trial Court's Decision, Rollo, p. 41.
[5] Court of Appeal's Decision, Rollo, p. 34.
[6] Filed on October 21, 1996, Rollo, pp. 5-20.
[7] Luna vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 107, 113 [1992].
[8] Respondent's Comment, Rollo, pp. 60-78, at p. 64.
[9] Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 58 [1997].
[10] Ford Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 320 [1997]; Llorente, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 382 [1998].
[11] Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 520, 526 [1993].