THIRD DIVISION
|
AIR
Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 165266 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
|
BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO, substituted by
his surviving heirs represented by Dolores P. Gillego, Respondent. |
Promulgated: December 15, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
For
review is the Decision[1] dated June 30,
2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 56587 which affirmed the
Decision[2] dated January 3,
1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 137 in Civil Case
No. 93-2328.
The
facts follow:
Sometime
in April 1993, respondent Bonifacio H. Gillego,[3] then incumbent
Congressman of the Second District of Sorsogon and Chairman of the House of
Representatives Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights, was invited to
participate as one of the keynote speakers at the 89th Inter-Parliamentary Conference Symposium on Parliament Guardian of Human Rights to be held in
Budapest, Hungary and Tokyo, Japan from May 19 to 22, 1993. The
On
However, upon arriving in
Upon his return to the P1,000,000.00 from the
petitioner as compensation for his loss, inconvenience and moral damages.[6] Petitioner, however, continued to ignore
respondent’s repeated follow-ups regarding his lost luggage.
On P40,000.00), moral damages (P1,000,000.00),
exemplary damages (P500,000.00), attorney’s fees (P50,000.00) and
costs of suit.
Petitioner filed its answer[8] admitting that
respondent was issued tickets for the flights mentioned, his subsequent request
to be transferred to another flight while at the Paris airport and the loss of
his checked-in luggage upon arrival at
Petitioner averred that it has taken
all necessary measures to avoid loss of respondent’s baggage, the contents of
which respondent did not declare, and
that it has no intent to cause such loss, much less knew that such loss could
occur. The loss of respondent’s luggage is due to or occasioned by force majeure or fortuitous event or
other causes beyond the carrier’s control. Diligent, sincere and timely efforts
were exerted by petitioner to locate respondent’s missing luggage and attended
to his problem with utmost courtesy, concern and dispatch. Petitioner further asserted that it exercised
due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees and acted in
good faith in denying respondent’s demand for damages. The claims for actual, moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees therefore have no basis in fact and in law, and
are, moreover speculative and unconscionable.
In his Reply,[9] respondent
maintained that the loss of his luggage cannot be attributed to anything other
than petitioner’s simple negligence and its failure to perform the diligence
required of a common carrier.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered
ordering defendant to pay plaintiff:
1. The sum of
P1,000,000.00 as moral damages;
2. The sum of
P500,000.00 as exemplary damages;
3. The sum of
P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
4. The costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The trial court found there was gross negligence on the part of petitioner
which failed to retrieve respondent’s checked-in luggage up to the time of the
filing of the complaint and as admitted in its answer, ignored respondent’s
repeated follow-ups. It likewise found petitioner guilty of willful misconduct
as it persistently disregarded the rights of respondent who was no ordinary
individual but a high government official.
As to the applicability of the limited liability for lost baggage under
the Warsaw Convention, the trial court rejected the argument of petitioner citing
the case of Alitalia v. Intermediate
Appellate Court.[11]
Petitioner
appealed to the CA, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. The CA noted that in the memorandum submitted
by petitioner before the trial court it was mentioned that respondent’s luggage
was eventually found and delivered to him, which was not denied by respondent
and thus resulted in the withdrawal of the claim for actual damages. As to the trial court’s finding of gross
negligence, bad faith and willful misconduct which justified the award of moral
and exemplary damages, the CA sustained the same, stating thus:
It bears stressing that defendant-appellant committed
a breach of contract by its failure to deliver the luggage of
plaintiff-appellee on time despite demand from plaintiff-appellee. The
unreasonable delay in the delivery of the luggage has not been satisfactorily
explained by defendant-appellant, either in its memorandum or in its
appellant’s brief. Instead of
justifying the delay, defendant-appellant took refuge under the provisions of
the Warsaw Convention to escape liability.
Neither was there any showing of apology on the part of
defendant-appellant as to the delay. Furthermore, the unapologetic
defendant-appellant even faulted plaintiff-appellee for not leaving a local
address in
Its
motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the present Rule
45 petition raising the following grounds:
I.
THE
AMOUNTS AWARDED TO RESPONDENT AS MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARE EXCESSIVE,
UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNREASONABLE.
II.
THERE
IS NO LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS THAT PETITIONER’S ACTIONS WERE ATTENDED BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE, BAD
FAITH AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT AND THAT IT ACTED IN A WANTON, FRAUDULENT,
RECKLESS, OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT MANNER, TO JUSTIFY THE AWARD OF MORAL AND
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.[13]
Petitioner
assails the trial and appellate courts for awarding extravagant sums to
respondent that already tend to punish the petitioner and enrich the
respondent, which is not the function at all of moral damages. Upon the facts established, the damages
awarded are definitely not proportionate or commensurate to the wrong or injury
supposedly inflicted. Without belittling
the problems respondent experienced in Budapest after losing his luggage,
petitioner points out that despite the unfortunate incident, respondent was
able to reconstruct the speeches, notes and study guides he had earlier
prepared for the conference in Budapest and Tokyo, and to attend, speak and
participate therein as scheduled. Since
he prepared the research and wrote his speech, considering his acknowledged and
long-standing expertise in the field of human rights in the
Comparing the situation in this case
to other cases awarding similar damages to the aggrieved passenger as a result
of breaches of contract by international carriers, petitioner argues that even
assuming that respondent was entitled to moral and exemplary damages, the sums
adjudged should be modified or reduced.
It is stressed that petitioner or its agents were never rude or
discourteous toward respondent; he was not subjected to humiliating treatment
or comments as in the case of Lopez, et
al. v. Pan American World Airways,[15] Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines[16] and Zulueta
v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.[17]. The mere fact that respondent was a
Congressman should not result in an automatic increase in the moral and
exemplary damages recoverable. As held
in Kierulf v. Court of Appeals[18] the social
and financial standing of a claimant may be considered only if he or she was
subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his or
her social and financial standing.[19]
In any event, petitioner invokes the
application of the exception to the rule that only questions of law may be
entertained by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 as to
allow a factual review of the case.
First, petitioner contends that it has always maintained that the
“admission” in its answer was only made out of inadvertence, considering that
it was inconsistent with the special and affirmative defenses set forth in the
same pleading. The trial court
incorrectly concluded that petitioner had not prepared a Property Irregularity
Report (PIR) but fabricated one only as an afterthought. A PIR can only be initiated upon the instance
of a passenger whose baggage had been lost, and in this case it was prepared by
the station where the loss was reported.
The PIR in this case was automatically and chronologically recorded in
petitioner’s computerized system.
Respondent himself admitted in his testimony that he gave his Philippine
address and telephone number to the lady in charge of petitioner’s complaint
desk in
Petitioner reiterates that there was
no bad faith or negligence on its part and the burden is on the respondent to
prove by clear and convincing evidence that it acted in bad faith. Respondent in his testimony miserably failed
to prove that bad faith, fraud or ill will motivated or caused the delay of his
baggage. This Court will surely agree
that mere failure of a carrier to deliver a passenger’s baggage at the agreed
place and time did not ipso facto
amount to willful misconduct as to make it liable for moral and exemplary
damages. Petitioner adduced evidence
showing that it exerted diligent, sincere and timely efforts to locate the
missing baggage, eventually leading to its recovery. It attended to respondent’s problem with
utmost courtesy, concern and dispatch.
Respondent, moreover, never alleged that petitioner’s employees were at
anytime rude, mistreated him or in anyway showed improper behavior.[21]
The petition is partly meritorious.
A
business intended to serve the travelling public primarily, a contract of
carriage is imbued with public interest.[22] The law governing common carriers
consequently imposes an exacting standard.
Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that in case of lost or
damaged goods, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
as required by Article 1733. Thus, in an
action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common
carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the
existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance
by the carrier.[23]
That
respondent’s checked-in luggage was not found upon arrival at his destination
and was not returned to him until about two years later[24]
is not disputed. The action filed by the
respondent is founded on such breach of the contract of carriage with
petitioner who offered no satisfactory explanation for the unreasonable delay
in the delivery of respondent’s baggage. The presumption of negligence was not
overcome by the petitioner and hence its liability for the delay was
sufficiently established. However, upon
receipt of the said luggage during the pendency of the case in the trial court,
respondent did not anymore press on his claim for actual or compensatory damages
and neither did he adduce evidence of the actual amount of loss and damage
incurred by such delayed delivery of his luggage. Consequently, the trial court proceeded to
determine only the propriety of his claim for moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees.
In
awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately injurious or the one
responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith.[25] Not every case of mental anguish, fright or
serious anxiety calls for the award of moral damages.[26] Where in breaching the contract of carriage
the 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 the obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably
foreseen. In such a case the liability does not include moral and exemplary
damages.[27]
Bad
faith should be established by clear and convincing evidence. The settled rule is that the law always
presumes good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to
the acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad
faith or with ill motive.[28]
In
the case of Tan v. Northwest Airlines,
Inc.,[29]
we sustained the CA’s deletion of moral and exemplary damages awarded to a
passenger whose baggage were loaded to another plane with the same expected
date and time of arrival but nevertheless not delivered to her on time. We
found that respondent carrier was not motivated by malice or bad faith in doing
so due to weight and balance restrictions as a safety measure. In another case involving the off-loading of
private respondents’ baggage to another destination, taken together with petitioner
airline’s neglect in providing the necessary accommodations and assistance to
its stranded passengers, aggravated by the discourteous acts of its employees,
we upheld the CA in sustaining the trial court’s decision awarding moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
We pointed out that it is PAL’s duty to provide assistance to private
respondents and to any other passenger similarly inconvenienced due to delay in
the completion of the transport and the receipt of their baggage.[30]
After
a careful review, we find that petitioner is liable for moral damages.
Petitioner’s
station manager, Ma. Lourdes Reyes, testified that upon receiving the
letter-complaint of respondent’s counsel, she immediately began working on the
PIR from their computerized data. Based
on her testimony, a PIR is issued at the airline station upon complaint by a
passenger concerning missing baggage.
From the information obtained in the computer-printout, it appears that
a PIR[31]
was initiated at petitioner’s
We
hold that the trial and appellate courts did not err in finding that petitioner
acted in bad faith in repeatedly ignoring respondent’s follow-up calls. The alleged entries in the PIR deserve scant
consideration, as these have not been properly identified or authenticated by
the airline station representative in
Furthermore,
the alleged copy of the PIR confirmed that the only action taken by the
petitioner to locate respondent’s luggage were telex searches allegedly made on
May 17, 21 and 23, 1993. There was not
even any attempt to explain the reason for the loss of respondent’s luggage. Clearly, petitioner did not give the
attention and care due to its passenger whose baggage was not transported and
delivered to him at his travel destination and scheduled time. Inattention to and lack of care for the
interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration,
particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the
passenger to an award of moral damages.[33]
What the law considers as bad faith which may furnish the ground for an award
of moral damages would be bad faith in securing the contract and in the
execution thereof, as well as in the enforcement of its terms, or any other
kind of deceit.[34]
While
respondent failed to cite any act of discourtesy, discrimination or rudeness by
petitioner’s employees, this did not make his loss and moral suffering insignificant
and less deserving of compensation. In repeatedly ignoring respondent’s inquiries,
petitioner’s employees exhibited an indifferent attitude without due regard for
the inconvenience and anxiety he experienced after realizing that his luggage
was missing. Petitioner was thus guilty
of bad faith in breaching its contract of carriage with the respondent, which
entitles the latter to the award of moral damages.
However,
we agree with petitioner that the sum of P1,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court is excessive and
not proportionate to the loss or suffering inflicted on the passenger under the
circumstances. As in Trans World Airlines v. Court of Appeals[35]
where this Court after considering the social standing of the aggrieved
passenger who is a lawyer and director of several companies, the amount of P500,000.00
awarded by the trial court as moral damages was still reduced to P300,000.00,
the moral damages granted to herein respondent should likewise be
adjusted.
The
purpose of awarding moral damages is to enable the injured party to obtain
means, diversion or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering
he has undergone by reason of defendant's culpable action. On the other hand,
the aim of awarding exemplary damages is to deter serious wrongdoings.[36] Article 2216 of the Civil Code
provides that assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court
according to the circumstances of each case. This discretion is limited by the
principle that the amount awarded should not be palpably excessive as to
indicate that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the
trial court. Simply put, the amount of damages must be
fair, reasonable and proportionate to the injury suffered.[37]
Where
as in this case the air carrier failed to act timely on the passenger’s
predicament caused by its employees’ mistake and more than ordinary
inadvertence or inattention, and the passenger failed to show any act of
arrogance, discourtesy or rudeness committed by the air carrier’s employees,
the amounts of P200,000.00, P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 as
moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees would be sufficient and justified.[38]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision dated P200,000.00, P50,000.00
and P30,000.00, respectively.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
||
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
|
MARIA Associate Justice |
||
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third
Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
*
Designated additional member per
Special Order No. 921 dated
[1] CA rollo, pp. 129-136. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a Member of this Court).
[2] Records, pp. 318-326. Penned by Judge Jaime D. Discaya.
[3] Died during the pendency of the appeal and duly substituted by his surviving spouse and children. CA rollo, pp. 122-124.
[4] Records, pp. 76-159.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] G.R. No. 71929,
[12] CA rollo, pp. 134-135.
[13] Rollo, p. 9.
[14]
[15] No. L-22415,
[16] No. L-28773,
[17] No. L-28589,
[18] G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343,
[19] Rollo, pp. 13-16.
[20]
[21]
[22] British Airways v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121824, January 29, 1998, 285 SCRA 450, 457-458.
[23] China
Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 45985 & 46036,
[24] Records, p. 231.
[25] Cervantes
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125138,
[26] China Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129988, July 14, 2003, 406 SCRA 113, 133.
[27] Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003, 399 SCRA 20 7, 222-223, citing Tan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 135802, March 3, 2000, 327 SCRA 263, 268 and Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001, 352 SCRA 428, 436.
[28] Ford Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99039, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 320, 328-329, citing Philippine Air Lines v. Miano, G.R. No. 106664, March 8, 1995, 242 SCRA 235, 240 and Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112660, March 14, 1995, 242 SCRA 341, 345.
[29] G.R. No. 135802,
[30] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119641, May 17, 1996, 257 SCRA 33, 45.
[31] Records, p. 212.
[32] TSN,
[33] See Trans World Airlines v. Court of Appeals, No. L-78656, August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 143, 147 and Alitalia Airways v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 763, 771.
[34] Japan Airlines v. Simangan, G.R. No. 170141, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 341, 362, citing Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119641, May 17, 1996, 257 SCRA 33, 43.
[35] No. L-78656,
[36] Philippine
Airlines, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123238,
[37]
[38] See Singson
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119995,