FIRST
DIVISION
AIR
FRANCE PHILIPPINES/ G.R. No. 188961
KLM
AIR FRANCE,
Petitioner, Present:
CORONA, J., Acting Chairperson,*
VELASCO, JR.,**
- v e r s u
s - NACHURA,***
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO and
BERSAMIN, JJ.
JOHN
ANTHONY DE CAMILIS,
Respondent. Promulgated:
October 13, 2009
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA,
J.:
Respondent John Anthony de Camilis filed
a case for breach of contract of carriage, damages and attorney’s fees against
petitioner Air France Philippines/KLM Air France (AF) in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 59.
Respondent alleged that he went on a
pilgrimage with a group of Filipinos to selected countries in Europe. According
to respondent: (1) AF’s agent in Paris failed to inform him of the need to
secure a transit visa for Moscow, as a result of which he was denied entry to
Moscow and was subjected to humiliating interrogation by the police; (2)
another AF agent (a certain Ms. Soeyesol) rudely denied his request to contact
his travel companions to inform them that he was being sent back to Paris from Moscow
with a police escort; Ms. Soeyesol even reported him as a security threat which
resulted in his being subjected to further interrogation by the police in Paris
and Rome, and worse, also lifted his flight coupons for the rest of his trip; (3)
AF agents in Rome refused to honor his confirmed flight to Paris; (4) upon
reaching Paris for his connecting flight to Manila, he found out that the AF
agents did not check in his baggage and since he had to retrieve his bags at
the baggage area, he missed his connecting flight; (5) he had to shoulder his
extended stay in Paris for AF’s failure to make good its representation that he
would be given a complimentary motel pass and (6) he was given a computer
print-out of his flight reservation for Manila but when he went to the airport,
he was told that the flight was overbooked. It was only when he made a scene that
the AF agent boarded him on an AF flight to Hongkong and placed him on a connecting
Philippine Airlines flight to Manila.
The RTC found that AF breached its
contract of carriage and that it was liable to pay P200,000 actual
damages, P1 million moral
damages, P1 million exemplary damages and P300,000 attorney’s
fees to respondent.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the RTC decision with modifications.[1]
The CA ruled that it was respondent
(as passenger), and not AF, who was responsible for having the correct travel
documents. However, the appellate court stated that this fact did not absolve AF
from liability for damages.
The CA agreed with the findings of fact
of the RTC that AF’s agents and representatives repeatedly subjected respondent
to very poor service, verbal abuse and abject lack of respect and
consideration. As such, AF was guilty of bad faith for which respondent ought
to be compensated.
The appellate court affirmed the award
of P1 million moral damages and P300,000 attorney’s fees. However,
it reduced the actual damages to US$906 (or its peso equivalent). According to
the CA, this amount represented the expenses respondent incurred from the time
he was unable to join his group in Rome (due to the unfounded “communiqué” of
Ms. Soeyesol that he was a security threat) up to the time his flight
reservation from Paris to Manila was dishonored for which he was forced to stay
in Paris for two additional days. The appellate court pointed out that, on the
other hand, respondent’s expenses for
the Moscow leg of the trip must be borne by him as AF could not be faulted when
he was refused entry to Moscow for lack of a transit visa.
The CA also decreased the exemplary
damages from P1 million to P300,000.
The CA further imposed interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
extrajudicial demand[2] until
full satisfaction, but before judgment becomes final. From the date of finality
of the judgment until the obligation is totally paid, 12% interest p.a. shall
be imposed.
Hence, this recourse.
Essentially, AF assails the CA’s
award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to respondent as the
alleged injury sustained was not clearly established. AF added that, even if respondent
was entitled to the same, the amounts awarded were exorbitant. Lastly, it
argued that the interest rate should run not from the time of respondent’s extrajudicial
demand but from the time of judgment of the RTC.
We deny the petition.
Preliminarily, on the issue
pertaining to whether or not respondent was entitled to damages and attorney’s
fees, the same entails a resort to the parties’ respective evidence. Thus, AF is
clearly asking us to consider a question of fact.
Time and again, we have held that the
jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
is limited only to questions of law,[3] save for
certain exceptions,[4]
none of which are present in this case.
Both the RTC and the CA
have competently ruled on the issue of respondent’s entitlement to damages and
attorney’s fees as they properly laid down both the factual and legal bases for
their respective decisions. We see no reason to disturb their findings.
The above liabilities of AF shall earn
legal interest pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Construction
Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Estrella,[5] citing Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA.[6]
Pursuant to this ruling, the legal
interest is 6% p.a. and it shall be reckoned from April 25, 2007 when the RTC
rendered its judgment, not from the time of respondent’s extrajudicial demand. This
must be so as it was at the time the RTC rendered its judgment that the
quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained.
Then, from the time this decision becomes final and executory, the interest
rate shall be 12% p.a. until full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
90151 is AFFIRMED. Petitioner is
ordered to PAY legal interest of 6% p.a. from the date
of promulgation of the decision dated April 25, 2007 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 59, Makati City and 12% p.a. from the time the decision of this
Court attains finality, on all sums awarded until their full satisfaction.
Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Acting Chairperson
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Acting 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.
Acting Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 724 dated October 5, 2009.
** Per Special Order No. 719 dated October 5, 2009.
*** Per Special Order No. 725 dated October 5, 2009.
[1] Decision dated March 23, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90151, penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. of the Former Second Division of the CA. Rollo, pp. 53-68. Motion for reconsideration of this decision was denied in a resolution dated July 9, 2009. Id., pp. 90-91.
[2] August 1, 2003.
[3] B & I Realty Co., Inc. v. Spouses Caspe, G.R. No. 146972, 29 January 2008, 543 SCRA 1, 7.
[4] See Baricuatro v. CA, 382 Phil. 15, 24 (2000).
[5] G.R. No. 147791, 8 September 2006, 501 SCRA 228, 244-245.
[6] 379 Phil. 84, 89-90 (2000).
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of
actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual
thereof, is imposed as follows:
1. x x x
2. When an obligation, not constituting a
loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages
awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per
annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim
is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such
certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made,
the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is
made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been
reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally
adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. (Emphasis supplied.)