SECOND DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 156654 Present: QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. |
|
Respondent. |
Promulgated: November
20, 2008 |
x- - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review assails the Decision[1]
dated P100,000 moral damages, P20,000
exemplary damages and P30,000 attorney’s fees plus costs of suit.
The antecedent
facts are as follows:
In a
Complaint[4] dated February 11, 1992, filed with
the RTC of Manila, Branch 24, Lopez claimed that PAL had unjustifiably
downgraded his seat from business to economy class in his return flight from
Bangkok to Manila last November 30, 1991, and that, in view thereof, PAL should
be directed to pay him moral damages of at least P100,000, exemplary
damages of at least P20,000, attorney’s fees in the sum of P30,000,
as well as the costs of suit.
To support his claim, Lopez averred
that he purchased a Manila-Hongkong-Bangkok-Manila PAL business class ticket
and that his return flight to
For its part, PAL denied any liability and claimed that whatever damage
Lopez had suffered was due to his own fault.
PAL explained that the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage
required Lopez to reconfirm his booking for the
In its Decision
dated
It also noted
that the following showed that PAL’s employees had been negligent in booking
and confirming Lopez’s travel accommodations from Bangkok to Manila: (1) the admission of PAL’s booking personnel[7]
that she affixed the validation sticker on Lopez’s ticket on the basis of the
passenger’s name list showing that his reservation was for an economy class
seat without examining or checking
the latter’s ticket during his booking validation; and (2) the admission of PAL’s
check-in clerk[8] at the Bangkok Airport that when Lopez
checked-in for his return trip to Manila, she similarly gave Lopez an economy
boarding pass based on the information found in the coupon of the ticket and
the passenger manifest without checking the
latter’s ticket. The trial court said
that had PAL’s employees examined his ticket in those instances, the error or
oversight which might have resulted from the phoned-in booking could have been
easily rectified.[9]
Thus, citing Articles 1733[10]
and 2220[11] of the Civil Code
and the case of Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa
German Airlines,[12]
the trial court held that the inattention and lack of care on the part of the
common carrier, in this case PAL, resulting in the failure of the passenger to
be accommodated in the class contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud,
making it liable for damages.[13] The trial court likewise awarded attorney’s
fees in favor of Lopez after noting that Lopez was forced to litigate in order
to assert his rights.[14]
The
dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads:
Based
on all the foregoing therefore, the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant and orders defendant to pay plaintiff, as prayed for in
the complaint, the following amounts: P100,000.00
for moral damages; P20,000.00 for exemplary damages and P30,000.00
for attorney’s fees and also to pay for the cost of suit. All amounts awarded to bear legal interest from
date of this decision.
SO
ORDERED.[15]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in
toto the trial court’s decision after having been fully convinced of the
negligence of PAL’s employees and after finding PAL’s defenses to be unworthy
of belief and contrary to common observation and experience.
PAL moved for
reconsideration but it was denied.
Hence, this petition.
In
our Resolution[16]
dated
Petitioner
contends that:
I.
The
Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that in an open-dated contract of
carriage, the parties are free to agree on the terms thereof on the date left
open.
II.
The Court of Appeals
erred in not ruling that respondent’s contributory negligence prevents him from
recovering damages from petitioner.
III.
The Court of Appeals
erred in not ruling that in moral damages recoverable in breaches of contracts,
the terms “fraud” and “bad faith” have reference to wanton, reckless, OppRESSIVE,
or malevolent conduct.
IV.
The Court of Appeals
erred in not ruling that exemplary damages are not recoverable in the absence
of fraud or bad faith.
V.
The Court of Appeals
erred in not ruling that award of attorney’s fees is not proper In the absence
of gross and evident bad
Simply put, the
issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals
err in not ruling that Lopez agreed or allowed his business class seat to be
downgraded to economy class? (2) Did the Court of Appeals err in not ruling
that Lopez’s alleged contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the
downgrading of his seat? and (3) Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding moral
damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Lopez in view of the
alleged absence of fraud or bad faith of PAL?
A
perusal of the aforesaid issues readily shows that the same are questions of
facts since its resolution would entail a re-evaluation of the evidence
presented before the trial court.[20] Thus, we could not take cognizance of such
issues considering the settled rule that our review under Rule 45 is confined
to questions of law. It is true that
there are several exceptions[21]
to the said rule; however, none finds application in this case.
Moreover,
we had already specifically held that issues on the existence of negligence,
fraud and bad faith are questions of fact.[22]
We had
also observed that PAL is also guilty of raising prohibited new matters[23]
and in changing its theory of defense[24]
since it is only in the present petition that it alleged the contributory
negligence of Lopez.
PAL’s
procedural lapses notwithstanding, we had nevertheless carefully reviewed the
records of this case and found no compelling reason to depart from the uniform
factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that: (1) it was the negligence of PAL which caused
the downgrading of the seat of Lopez; and (2) the aforesaid negligence of PAL
amounted to fraud or bad faith, considering our ruling in Ortigas.[25]
Moreover, we cannot agree with PAL that the amount of
moral damages awarded by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
was excessive. In Mercury Drug Corporation v. Baking,[26] we had stated that “there is no
hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of
moral damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. However, it must be commensurate to the loss
or injury suffered.”[27] Taking into account the attending circumstances here, we believe
that the amount of P100,000 awarded as moral damages is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 31-40. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, with Associate Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring.
[2]
[3] Records, pp. 199-210. Penned by Judge Sergio D. Mabunay.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Ms. Chongchit Tiumtongbai.
[8] Ms. Choompoonoot Chinkumnon.
[9] Records, p. 207.
[10] ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
x x x x
[11] ART. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
[12] No. L-28773,
[13]
[14] Rollo, p. 35.
[15] Records, p. 210.
[16] Rollo, pp. 130-134.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Microsoft
Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., G.R. No. 140946, September 13, 2004, 438
SCRA 224, 231.
[21] In Rosario
v. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 139233, November 11, 2005, 474
SCRA 500, 506, we held that factual issues may be resolved by this Court in
cases where (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3)
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the CA
went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the CA
are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9)
the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact
of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record.
[22] See the cases of Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
141089, August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA 126, 132; Quesada
v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 150325, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 454,
461; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Pua, G.R. No. 163197, March 30,
2005, pp. 1, 3-4 (Unsigned Resolution).
[23]
[24] Philippine National Construction
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA
569, 584-585.
[25] Ortigas,
Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, supra note 12.
[26] G.R. No. 156037,
[27]