FIRST DIVISION
|
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - SPOUSES
EDWARD J. HESHAN AND NELIA L. HESHAN AND DARA GANESSA L. HESHAN, REPRESENTED
BY HER PARENTS EDWARD AND NELIA HESHAN, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 179117
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, NACHURA,* LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February 3, 2010 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
In July 1998, Edward Heshan (Edward)
purchased three (3) roundtrip tickets from Northwest Airlines, Inc. (petitioner)
for him, his wife Nelia Heshan (Nelia) and daughter Dara Ganessa Heshan (Dara)
for their trip from Manila to St. Louis, Missouri, USA and back to attend an
ice skating competition where then seven yearold Dara was to participate.[1]
When Dara’s participation in the ice
skating event ended on August 7, 1998, the Heshans proceeded to the airport to
take the connecting flight from St. Louis to
After all the other departing passengers
were given their boarding passes, the Heshans were told to board the plane
without any boarding pass given to them and to just occupy open seats
therein. Inside the plane, the Heshans
noticed that only one vacant passenger seat was available, which was offered to
Dara, while Edward and Nelia were directed to occupy two “folding seats”
located at the rear portion of the plane.
To respondents, the two folding seats were crew seats intended for the
stewardesses.[4]
Upset that there were not enough passenger
seats for them, the Heshans complained to the cabin crew about the matter but
were told that if they did not like to occupy the seats, they were free to
disembark from the plane. And disembark
they did, complaining thereafter to Carns about their situation. Petitioner’s plane then departed for
The Heshans were later endorsed to
and carried by Trans World Airways to Los Angeles. Respondents arrived in
On September 24, 1998, respondents
sent a letter to petitioner to demand indemnification for the breach of
contract of carriage.[8] Via letter of
As their demand remained unheeded, respondents
filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages at the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City.[10]
From the depositions of
petitioner’s employees Carns, Mylan Brown (Brown) and Melissa Seipel (Seipel), the
following version is gathered:
The Heshans did not have
reservations for particular seats on the flight. When they requested that they be seated
together, Carns denied the request and explained that other passengers had
pre-selected seats and that the computerized seating system did not reflect
that the request could be accommodated at the time. Carns nonetheless assured the Heshans that
they would be able to board the plane and be seated accordingly, as he in fact instructed
them ten minutes before the plane’s departure, to board the plane even without
boarding passes and to occupy “open seats” therein.[11]
By Seipel’s claim, as the
Heshans were upset upon learning that they were not seated together on the
plane, she told them that she would request other passengers to switch places
to accommodate their demand; that she never had a chance to try to carry out
their demand, however, as she first had to find space for their bags in the
overhead compartment; and that the Heshans cursed her which compelled her to
seek assistance from Brown in dealing with them.[12]
Brown averred that she
went to the back portion of the plane to help out but she was brushed aside by
Nelia who was cursing them as she stormed out of the plane followed by Edward
and Dara.[13]
Petitioner denied that the
Heshans (hereafter respondents) were told to occupy “folding seats” or crew
seats since “[Federal Aviation Authority] regulations say no passengers are to
sit there.”[14] As for respondents not having been given
boarding passes, petitioner asserted that that does not in itself mean that the
flight was overbooked, for
[t]his is done on last minute boarding when flights are full and in order to get passengers on their way and to get the plane out on time. This is acceptable procedure.[15]
Branch 96
of the RTC, by Decision[16]
of August 20, 2002, rendered judgment in favor of respondents, disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering [petitioner] Northwest Airlines, Inc. to pay [respondents] Edward J. Heshan, Nelia L. Heshan and Dara Ganessa L. Heshan the following:
1. P3,000,000.00, as moral damages;
2. P500,000.00, as exemplary damages;
3. A sum equivalent of 20% of the foregoing amounts, as attorney’s fees; and,
4. Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[17]
In finding for respondents, the trial
court noted:
[T]hat the [respondents] held confirmed reservations for the St Louis-Memphis leg of their return trip to the Philippines is not disputed. As such, they were entitled as of right under their contract to be accommodated in the flight, regardless of whether they had selected their seats in advance or not. They had arrived at the airport early to make sure of their seating together, and, in fact, Edward was second in the queue for boarding passes. Yet, Edward was unceremoniously sidelined and curtly told to wait without any explanations why. His concerned seeking for explanations was repeatedly rebuffed by the airline employees. When, at last, they were told to board the aircraft although they had not yet been issued boarding passes, which they thought to be highly unusual, they soon discovered, to their dismay, that the plane was fully booked, with only one seat left for the 3 of them. Edward and Nelia rejected the offer [to take] the crew seats. [Respondents] were thus forced to disembark. (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by
Decision[18] of June
22, 2007, sustained the trial court’s findings but reduced the award of moral
and exemplary damages to P2 million and P300,000, respectively.[19] In affirming the findings of the trial court,
the appellate court held:
… [I]t
is clear that the only instances [sic] when the [petitioner] and its
agents allow its passengers to board the plane without any boarding pass is
when the flights are full and the plane is running late. Taking into account the fact that the
[respondents] arrived at the airport early, checked-in their baggage before
hand and were in fact at the gates of the boarding area on time, thus, it could
not be said that they can fall under the exceptional circumstance [sic]. It
bears stressing at this juncture that it becomes a highly irregular situation
that despite the fact that the [respondents] showed up on time at the
boarding area[,] they were made to go in last and sans any boarding passes. Thus, We hold that it can be
logically inferred that the reason why no boarding passes were immediately
issued to the [respondents] is because Flight 972 from
Reconsideration having been denied by
the appellate court,[20]
petitioner filed the present petition for review upon the issues of whether the
appellate court
I
. . . ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES…
II
. . . ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES…
III
. . . ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES…
IV
. . .ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES, [ERRED IN AWARDING EXCESSIVE DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS] .
V
. . . ERRED IN NOT FINDING FOR [IT] ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM.[21]
To
petitioner, the present petition offers compelling reasons to again review the
congruent factual findings of the lower courts which, to it, are contrary to
the evidence on record; that the lower
courts disregarded vital testimonies of its witnesses; that the appellate court
premised its decision on a misapprehension of facts and failed to consider
certain relevant facts which, if properly taken into account, will justify a
different conclusion; that the appellate court made several inferences which
were manifestly mistaken and absurd; and that the appellate court exercised
grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts.[22]
Petitioner maintains that it did not
violate the contract of carriage since respondents were eventually transported
from Memphis to Los Angeles, albeit via another airline, and that respondents
made no claim of having sustained injury during the carriage.[23]
Petitioner goes on to posit
that if indeed crew seats were offered to respondents, its crew would have had nowhere
to sit and the plane would not have been able to depart,[24]
and that in reality, respondents voluntarily disembarked from the aircraft
because they were not willing to wait to be seated together.[25]
At all events, petitioner
finds the amount of damages imposed by the appellate court “excessive and
unprecedented” and needing substantial reduction.[26]
In
their Comment, respondents counter that since the petition is predicated on
questions of facts and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s factual
findings, these are entitled to great weight and respect.[27]
Respondents thus maintain that
petitioner was guilty of breach of contract.
They cite Singapore Airlines v. Fernandez,[28]
which ruled:
[W]hen an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then has every right to expect that he be transported on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract of carriage.
The
petition fails.
As has repeatedly been underscored,
in petitions for review on certiorari,
the general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and
passed upon by the Court.[29]
Factual findings of the appellate court
are generally binding on the Court, especially when in complete accord with the
findings of the trial court, as in the present case, save for some recognized
exceptions.[30]
The
issues raised by petitioner are predicated on the appreciation of factual
issues. In weighing the evidence of the
parties, the trial court found respondents’ more credible.
An
examination of the evidence presented by petitioner shows that it consisted
only of depositions of its witnesses. It
had in its possession and disposition pertinent documents such as the flight
manifest and the plane’s actual seating capacity and layout which could have
clearly refuted respondents’ claims that there were not enough passenger seats
available for them. It inexplicably
failed to offer even a single piece of documentary evidence. The Court thus believes that if at least the cited
documentary evidence had been produced, it would have been adverse to petitioner’s
case.[31]
More. Petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain
why it did not issue boarding passes to respondents who were confirmed
passengers, even after they had checked-in their luggage three hours earlier. That respondents did not reserve seats prior
to checking-in did not excuse the non-issuance of boarding passes.
From
Carns’ following testimony, viz:
Q. Now you mentioned open seats, Mr. Carns, can you tell us what the phrase or term open seats mean?
A. Well, about 10 minutes before boarding time when we cancel those who do not take reserve seats, we know how many passengers are on the plane and we just tell the other passengers to take whatever seat is available at that time,[32]
it
is gathered that respondents were made to wait for last-minute cancellations before
they were accommodated onto the plane. This, coupled with petitioner’s failure
to issue respondents their boarding passes and the eleventh-hour directive for
them to embark, reinforces the impression that the flight was overbooked.
Petitioner’s
assertion that respondents disembarked from the plane when their request to be
seated together was ignored does not impress.
The observation of the appellate court, viz:
x x x x [T]he fact that the Appellees still boarded the plane ten (10) minutes prior to the departure time, despite knowing that they would be seated apart, is a clear manifestation of the Appellees’ willingness to abandon their request and just board the plane in order to catch their flight. But as it turns out, there were not enough seats for the three of them as aptly found by the Court a quo, to which We subscribed [sic]. x x x x,[33]
merits the
Court’s concurrence.
Nonetheless,
the petition is in part meritorious.
There is a need to substantially reduce the moral damages awarded by the
appellate court. While courts are given
discretion to determine the amount of damages to be awarded, it is limited by
the principle that the amount awarded should not be palpably and scandalously
excessive.[34]
Moral
damages are neither intended to impose a penalty to the wrongdoer, nor to
enrich the claimant. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, an award to
respondents of P500,000, instead of P2,000,000, as moral damages is to the Court reasonable.[35]
WHEREFORE, the
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of moral damages is reduced to P500,000. In all other respects, the Decision is
AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
|
|
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member per raffle dated January 25, 2010, in lieu of Justice Lucas P. Bersamin.
[1] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), January 20, 2000, p. 11.
[2] Records, p. 74.
[3] TSN, January 20, 2000, pp. 12-16.
[4] Id. at 17-20.
[5] Id. at 20-21.
[6] Id. at 22-26.
[7] TSN, June 9, 2000, p. 31.
[8] Records, pp. 77-78; Exhibit “H.”
[9] TSN, January
20, 2000, pp. 29-30.
[10] Records, pp. 1-6.
[11] Id. at 108-110.
[12] Id. at 115-117.
[13] Id. at 122.
[14] Id. at 117, 123.
[15] Id. at 110, 115 and 121; Depositions of Ken Carns, Melissa Seipel and Mylan Brown.
[16] Id. at 252-260. Penned by then Presiding Judge Lucas P. Bersamin (now an Associate Justice of the Court).
[17] Id. at 260.
[18] CA rollo, pp. 174-196. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio Jr. and Jose C. Reyes Jr. concurring.
[19] Id. at 196.
[20] Rollo, p. 90.
[21] Id. at 16-18.
[22] Id. at 297-298.
[23] Id. at 19.
[24] Id. at 22.
[25] Id. at 28.
[26] Id. at 51-54.
[27] Id. at 275-276.
[28] 463 Phil. 145 (2003).
[29] Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[30] These are:
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment
is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are
conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both
the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of
the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are disputed by
the respondent; (10) when the findings are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of
Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
[31] Section 3 (e) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence; Worcester v. Ocampo, 22 Phil. 42 (1912).
[32] Records, pp. 109-110.
[33] Rollo, p. 79.
[34] Saguid v. Security Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 159467, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 255, 275-276.
[35] Vide: Lufthansa
German Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83612, November 24, 1994, 238
SCRA 290; Alitalia Airways v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77011, July 24,
1990, 187 SCRA 763, 771-772; Japan Airlines v. Simangan, G.R. No.
170141, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 341; Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, G.R.
No. 155550, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 308.
In these cases, the Court awarded moral damages ranging from P200,000
to P500,000.