G.R. No. L-22415 March 30, 1966 FERNANDO LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, defendant-appellant. Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for the defendant-appellant. Vicente J. Francisco for the plaintiffs-appellants. BENGZON, J.P., J.: Plaintiffs and defendant appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Since the value in controversy exceeds P200,000 the appeals were taken directly to this Court upon all questions involved (Sec. 17, par. 3[5], Judiciary Act). Stated briefly the facts not in dispute are as follows: Reservations for first class accommodations in Flight No. 2 of Pan American World Airways — hereinafter otherwise called PAN-AM — from Tokyo to San Francisco on May 24, 1960 were made with PAN-AM on March 29, 1960, by "Your Travel Guide" agency, specifically, by Delfin Faustino, for then Senator Fernando Lopez, his wife Maria J. Lopez, his son-in-law Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., and his daughter, Mrs. Alfredo Montelibano, Jr., (Milagros Lopez Montelibano). PAN-AM's San Francisco head office confirmed the reservations on March 31, 1960. First class tickets for the abovementioned flight were subsequently issued by PAN-AM on May 21 and 23, 1960, in favor of Senator Lopez and his party. The total fare of P9,444 for all of them was fully paid before the tickets were issued. As scheduled Senator Lopez and party left Manila by Northwest Airlines on May 24, 1960, arriving in Tokyo at 5:30 P.M. of that day. As soon as they arrived Senator Lopez requested Minister Busuego of the Philippine Embassy to contact PAN-AM's Tokyo office regarding their first class accommodations for that evening's flight. For the given reason that the first class seats therein were all booked up, however, PAN-AM's Tokyo office informed Minister Busuego that PAN-AM could not accommodate Senator Lopez and party in that trip as first class passengers. Senator Lopez thereupon gave their first class tickets to Minister Busuego for him to show the same to PAN-AM's Tokyo office, but the latter firmly reiterated that there was no accommodation for them in the first class, stating that they could not go in that flight unless they took the tourist class therein. Due to pressing engagements awaiting Senator Lopez and his wife, in the United States — he had to attend a business conference in San Francisco the next day and she had to undergo a medical check-up in Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, on May 28, 1960 and needed three days rest before that in San Francisco — Senator Lopez and party were constrained to take PAN-AM's flight from Tokyo to San Francisco as tourist passengers. Senator Lopez however made it clear, as indicated in his letter to PAN- AM's Tokyo office on that date (Exh. A), that they did so "under protest" and without prejudice to further action against the airline.1äwphï1.ñët Suit for damages was thereafter filed by Senator Lopez and party against PAN-AM on June 2, 1960 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Alleging breach of contracts in bad faith by defendant, plaintiffs asked for P500,000 actual and moral damages, P100,000 exemplary damages, P25,000 attorney's fees plus costs. PAN-AM filed its answer on June 22, 1960, asserting that its failure to provide first class accommodations to plaintiffs was due to honest error of its employees. It also interposed a counterclaim for attorney's fees of P25,000. Subsequently, further pleadings were filed, thus: plaintiffs' answer to the counterclaim, on July 25, 1960; plaintiffs' reply attached to motion for its admittance, on December 2, 1961; defendant's supplemental answer, on March 8, 1962; plaintiffs' reply to supplemental answer, on March 10, 1962; and defendant's amended supplemental answer, on July 10, 1962. After trial — which took twenty-two (22) days ranging from November 25, 1960 to January 5, 1963 — the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on November 13, 1963, the dispositive portion stating: In view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, which is accordingly ordered to pay the plaintiffs the following: (a) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (b) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages; (c) P25,000.00 as attorney's fees, and the costs of this action. So ordered. Plaintiffs, however, on November 21, 1963, moved for reconsideration of said judgment, asking that moral damages be increased to P400,000 and that six per cent (6%) interest per annum on the amount of the award be granted. And defendant opposed the same. Acting thereon the trial court issued an order on December 14, 1963, reconsidering the dispositive part of its decision to read as follows:
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
G.R. No. L-22415 March 30, 1966FERNANDO LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs.PAN AMERIAN !ORLD AIR!A"#, defendant-appellant.Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for the defendant-appellant.Vicente J. Francisco for the plaintiffs-appellants.$ENGZON, %.P., J.:Plaintiffs and defendant appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Since thevalue in controversy exceeds P2, the appeals !ere ta"en directly to this Court upon all#uestions involved $Sec. %&, par. '()*, +udiciary ,ct-.Stated .riefly the facts not in dispute are as follo!s/ Reservations for first class accommodationsin Fli0ht 1o. 2 of Pan ,merican 2orld ,ir!ays 3 hereinafter other!ise called P,1-,4 3 from5o"yo to San Francisco on 4ay 26, %78 !ere made !ith P,1-,4 on 4arch 27, %78, .y 9:our 5ravel ;uide9 a0ency, specifically, .y s SanFrancisco head office confirmed the reservations on 4arch '%, %78.First class tic"ets for the a.ovementioned fli0ht !ere su.se#uently issued .y P,1-,4 on 4ay 2%and 2', %78, in favor of Senator =opezand his party. 5he totalfareofP7,666 for all of them !as fully paid .efore the tic"ets !ere issued.,sscheduledSenator =opezandpartyleft 4anila.y1orth!est,irlineson4ay26, %78,arrivin0in 5o"yoat)/'P.4. of thatday. ,ssoonas theyarrivedSenator=opez re#uested4inister ?usue0o of the Philippine @m.assy to contact P,1-,4>s 5o"yo office re0ardin0 theirfirst class accommodations for that evenin0>s fli0ht. For the 0iven reason that the first class seatstherein!ereall .oo"edup, ho!ever,P,1-,4>s 5o"yoofficeinformed4inister?usue0othatP,1-,4 could not accommodate Senator =opez and party in that trip as first class passen0ers.Senator =opez thereupon 0ave their first class tic"ets to 4inister ?usue0o for him to sho! thesame to P,1-,4>s 5o"yo office, .ut the latter firmly reiterated that there !as no accommodationfor them in the first class, statin0 that they could not 0o in that fli0ht unless they too" the touristclass therein.sfli0htfrom 5o"yo to SanFranciscoastourist passen0ers.Senator=opezho!evermade it clear, as indicated in his letter to P,1-,4>s 5o"yo office on that date $@xh. ,-, that theydid so 9under protest9 and !ithout preCudice to further action a0ainst the airline.1wph1.tSuit for dama0es !as thereafter filed .y Senator =opez and party a0ainst P,1-,4 on +une 2,%78intheCourt of First Instanceof Rizal. ,lle0in0.reachof contractsin.adfaith.ydefendant, plaintiffs as"ed for P), actual and moral dama0es, P%, exemplarydama0es, P2),attorney>sfeespluscosts. P,1-,4fileditsans!er on+une22, %78,assertin0that itsfailure to provide firstclassaccommodations to plaintiffs!asdue to honesterror of its employees. It also interposed a counterclaim for attorney>s fees of P2),.Su.se#uently, further pleadin0s !ere filed, thus/ plaintiffs> ans!er to the counterclaim, on +uly2), %78D plaintiffs> reply attached to motion for its admittance, on s supplemental ans!er, on 4arch B, %782D plaintiffs> reply to supplemental ans!er, on4arch %, %782D and defendant>s amended supplemental ans!er, on +uly %, %782.,fter trial 3 !hich too" t!enty-t!o $22- days ran0in0 from 1ovem.er 2), %78 to +anuary ),%78' 3 the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on 1ovem.er %', %78', the dispositiveportion statin0/In vie! of the fore0oin0 considerations, Cud0ment is here.y rendered in favor of theplaintiffs and a0ainst the defendant, !hich is accordin0ly ordered to pay the plaintiffsthefollo!in0/ $a- P%,.asmoral dama0esD $.- P2,.asexemplarydama0esD $c- P2),. as attorney>s fees, and the costs of this action.So ordered.Plaintiffs, ho!ever, on 1ovem.er 2%, %78', moved for reconsideration of said Cud0ment, as"in0that moral dama0es .e increased to P6, and that six per cent $8E- interest per annum onthe amount of the a!ard .e 0ranted. ,nd defendant opposed the same. ,ctin0 thereon the trialcourt issued an order on s to @xh.8.-In saidmessa0e, ho!ever, Gerranzmista"enly cancelled alltheseats that had .een reserved, that is, includin0 those of Senator =opez and party.5he next day 3 ,pril %78 3 Gerranz discovered his mista"e, upon seein0 the reservation cardne!ly prepared .y his co-employee Pedro ,sensi for Sen. =opez and party to the exclusion ofthe Rufinos $@xh. )-. It !as then that Gerranz sent another telex !ire to the San Francisco headoffice, statin0 his error and as"in0 for the reinstatement of the four $6- first class seats reservedfor Senator =opez and party $,nnex ,-Helasco>s to @xh. 8-. San Francisco head office replied on,pril 22, %78that Senator =opezandpartyare!aitlistedandthat saidofficeisuna.letoreinstate them $,nnex ?-Helasco>s to @xh. 8-.Sincethefli0ht involved!asstill morethanamontha!ayandconfident that reinstatement!ould.emade, Gerranz for0otthematterandtoldnoonea.outit except hisco-employee,either ,rmando s to @xh. 8-, it !as assumed and ta"en for 0ranted that reinstatement!ould .e made. 5hirdly, ,rmando s reservations in a phone call on ,pril2&, %78 to defendant>s tic"et sellers, !hen at the time it appeared in plaintiffs> reservation card$@xh.)-thatthey!ere only !aitlistedpassen0ers. Fourthly, defendant>stic"et sellers issuedplaintiffs>tic"ets on 4ay 2% and 2', %78, !ithout first chec"in0 their reservations Cust .eforeissuin0 said tic"ets. ,nd, finally, no one amon0 defendant>s a0ents notified Senator =opez andpartythat their reservationshad.eencancelled, aprecautionthat couldhaveavertedtheirenterin0!ithdefendantintocontractsthatthelatterhadalready placed .eyondits po!ertoperform.,ccordin0ly, there .ein0 a clear admission in defendant>s evidence of facts amountin0 to a .adfaith on its part in re0ard to the .reach of its contracts !ith plaintiffs, it .ecomes unnecessary tofurther discuss the evidence adduced .y plaintiffs to esta.lish defendant>s .ad faith. For !hat isadmitted in the course of the trial does not need to .e proved $Sec. 2, Rule %27, Rules of Court-.,ddressin0 ourselves no! to the #uestion of dama0es, it is !ell to state at the outset those rulesand principles. First, moral dama0es are recovera.le in .reach of contracts !here the defendantactedfraudulentlyorin.adfaith$,rt. 222, 1e!Civil Code-. Second, inadditiontomoraldama0es, exemplary or corrective dama0es may .e imposed .y !ay of example or correctionfor the pu.lic 0ood, in .reach of contract !here the defendant acted in a !anton, fraudulent,rec"less, oppressive or malevolent manner $,rticles 2227, 22'2, 1e! Civil Code-. ,nd, third, a!ritten contract for an attorney>sservices shallcontrolthe amount to .e paid therefor unlessfound .y the court to .e unconsciona.le or unreasona.le $Sec. 26, Rule %'B, Rules of Court-.First, then, as to moral dama0es. ,s a proximate result of defendant>s .reach in .ad faith of itscontracts !ith plaintiffs, the latter suffered social humiliation, !ounded feelin0s, serious anxietyand mental an0uish. For plaintiffs !ere travellin0 !ith first class tic"ets issued .y defendant andyet they !ere 0iven only the tourist class. ,t stop-overs, they !ere expected to .e amon0 thefirst-class passen0ers .y those a!aitin0 to !elcome them, only to .e found amon0 the touristpassen0ers. It maynot .ehumiliatin0totravel astourist passen0ersD it ishumiliatin0 to!eco"pelled to travel as such, contrary to !hat is ri0htfully to .e expected from the contractualunderta"in0.Senator=opez!asthenSenatePresident $ro%e"pore. International carriersli"edefendant"no!thepresti0eof suchanoffice. For theSenateisnot onlytheApper Cham.er of thePhilippine Con0ress, .ut the nation>s treaty-ratifyin0 .ody. It may also .e mentioned that in hisaforesaid office Senator =opez !as in a position to preside in impeachment cases should theSenatesit asImpeachment 5ri.unal. ,ndhe!asformer Hice-President of thePhilippines.Senator =opez !as 0oin0 to the Anited States to attend a private .usiness conference of the?inal.a0an-Isa.ela Su0ar CompanyD .ut his aforesaid ran" and position !ere .y no means left.ehind, and in fact he had a second en0a0ement a!aitin0 him in the Anited States/ a .an#uettendered .y Filipino friends in his honor as Senate President $ro %e"pore $5sn., pp. %6-%), 1ov.2), %78-. Forthemoral dama0essustained.yhim, therefore, ana!ardof P%,.isappropriate.4rs. 4aria +. =opez, as !ife of Senator =opez, shared his presti0e and therefore his humiliation.Inadditionshesufferedphysical discomfort durin0the%'-hour trip,$)hoursfrom5o"yotoGonolulu and B hours from Gonolulu to San Francisco-. ,lthou0h Senator =opez stated that 9she!as #uite !ell9 $5sn., p. 22, 1ov. 2), %78- 3 he o.viously meant relatively !ell, since the restof his statement is that t!o months .efore, she !as attac"ed.y severe flu and lost % pounds of!ei0ht and that she !as advised .y sconclusion is dra!n. 7 , court of Custice is not hide.ound to !rite in its decision every .it andpiece of evidence % presented .y one party and the other upon the issues raised. 1either is it to.e .urdened !ith the o.li0ation 9to specify in the sentence the facts9which a part# 1consideredas pro/ed1. %%5his is .ut a part of the mental process from !hich the Court dra!s the essentialultimate facts. , decision is not to .e so clo00ed !ith details such that prolixity, if not confusion,mayresult. Solon0asthedecisionof theCourt of,ppealscontainsthenecessaryfactsto!arrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to !ithhold therefrom 9any specific findin0 offacts !ith respect to the evidence for the defense9. ?ecause as this Court !ell o.served, 95hereis no la! that so re#uires9. %2 Indeed, 9the mere failure to specify $in the decision- the contentionsof the appellant and the reasons for refusin0 to .elieve them is not sufficient to hold the samecontrary to the re#uirements of the provisions of la! and the Constitution9. It is in this settin0 thatin ,ani(qe, it !asheldthat themerefact that thefindin0s9!ere.asedentirelyontheevidence for the prosecution !ithout ta"in0 into consideration or even mentionin0 the appellant>sside in the controversy as sho!n .y his o!n testimony9, !ould not vitiate the Cud0ment.%' If thecourt did not recite in the decision the testimony of each !itness for, or each item of evidencepresented .y, the defeated party, it does not mean that the court has overloo"ed such testimonyor such item of evidence. %6 ,t any rate, the le0al presumptions are that official duty has .eenre0ularly performed, and that all the matters !ithin an issue in a case !ere laid .efore the courtand passed upon .y it. %)Findin0s of fact, !hich the Court of ,ppeals is re#uired to ma"e, may.e defined as 9the !rittenstatement of the ultimate facts as found .y the court ... and essential to support the decision andCud0ment rendered thereon9. %85hey consist of the court>s 1conclsions1 !ith respect to thedeter"inati/e facts in isse9. %& , #uestion of la!, upon the other hand, has .een declared as9one !hich does not call for an examination of the pro.ative value of the evidence presented .ythe parties.9 %B2. ?y statute, 9only #uestions of la! may .e raised9 in an appeal .y certiorari from a Cud0ment ofthe Court of ,ppeals. %7 5hat Cud0ment is conclusive as to the facts. It is not appropriately the.usiness of this Court to alter the facts or to revie! the #uestions of fact. 22ith these 0uideposts, !e no! face the pro.lem of !hether the findin0s of fact of the Court of,ppeals support its Cud0ment.'. 2as Carrascoso entitled to the first class seat he claimsKIt is conceded in all #uarters that on 4arch 2B, %7)B he paid to and received from petitioner afirst class tic"et. ?ut petitioner asserts that said tic"et did not represent the true and completeintent and a0reement of the partiesD that said respondent "ne! that he did not have confirmedreservations for first class on any specific fli0ht, althou0h he had tourist class protectionD that,accordin0ly, the issuance of a first class tic"et !as no 0uarantee that he !ould have a first classride, .ut that such !ould depend upon the availa.ility of first class seats.5hese are matters !hich petitioner has thorou0hly presented and discussed in its .rief .eforethe Court of ,ppeals under its third assi0nment of error, !hich reads/ 95he trial court erred infindin0that plaintiff hadconfirmedreservationsfor, andari0ht to, first classseatsonthe9definite9 se0ments of his Courney, particularly that from Sai0on to ?eirut9. 2%,nd, the Court of ,ppeals disposed of this contention thus/scontention, thus/Fn the fact that plaintiff paid for, and !as issued a 9First class9 tic"et, there can .e no #uestion.,part from his testimony, see plaintiff>s @xhi.its 9,9, 9,-%9, 9?9, 9?-%,9 9?-29, 9C9 and 9C-%9, anddefendant>s o!n !itness, Rafael ,ltona0a, confirmed plaintiff>s testimony and testified as follo!s/J. In these tic"ets there are mar"s 9F.I.9 From !hat you "no!, !hat does this FImeanK,. 5hat the space is confirmed.J. Confirmed for first classK,. :es, 9first class9. $5ranscript, p. %87-x x x x x x x x xs o!n !itness Rafael ,ltona0a testified that thereservation for a 9first class9 accommodation for the plaintiff !as confirmed. 5he court cannot.elieve that after such confirmation defendant had a ver.al understandin0 !ith plaintiff that the9first class9 tic"et issued to him .y defendant !ould .e su.Cect to confirmation in Gon0"on0. 2'2e have heretofore adverted to the fact that except for a sli0ht difference of a fe! pesos in theamount refunded on Carrascoso>s tic"et, the decision of the Court of First Instance !as affirmed.ytheCourt of ,ppeals inall other respects. 2eholdthevie!that suchaCud0ment ofaffirmance has mer0ed the Cud0ment of the lo!er court. 26Implicit in that affirmance is adetermination .y the Court of ,ppeals that the proceedin0 in the Court of First Instance !as freefrom preCudicial error and 9all #uestions raised .y the assi0nments of error and all #uestions thatmi0ht have .een raised are to .e re0arded as finally adCudicated a0ainst the appellant9. So also,theCud0ment affirmed9must .ere0ardedasfreefromall error9. 2) 2ereachedthispolicyconstruction .ecause nothin0 in the decision of the Court of ,ppeals on this point !ould su00estthat its findin0s of fact are in any !ay at !ar !ith those of the trial court. 1or !as said affirmance.y the Court of ,ppeals upon a 0round or 0rounds different from those !hich !ere made the.asis of the conclusions of the trial court. 28If, aspetitioner underscores, afirst-class-tic"et holder isnot entitledtoafirst classseat,not!ithstandin0 the fact that seat availa.ility in specific fli0hts is therein confirmed, then an airpassen0er is placed in the hollo! of the hands of an airline. 2hat security then can a passen0erhaveK It !ill al!ays .e an easy matter for an airline aided .y its employees, to stri"e out the verystipulations in the tic"et, and say that there !as a ver.al a0reement to the contrary. 2hat if thepassen0er had a schedule to fulfillK 2e have lon0 learned that, as a rule, a !ritten documentspea"s a uniform lan0ua0eD that spo"en !ord could .e notoriously unrelia.le. If only to achievesta.ility in the relations .et!een passen0er and air carrier, adherence to the tic"et so issued isdesira.le. Such is the case here. 5he lo!er courts refused to .elieve the oral evidence intendedto defeat the covenants in the tic"et.5he fore0oin0 are theconsiderations!hichpointto theconclusionthat therearefactsupon!hich the Court of ,ppeals predicated the findin0 that respondent Carrascoso had a first classtic"et and !asentitled to afirstclass seatat?an0"o",!hich is a stopover inthe Sai0on to?eirut le0of thefli0ht. 2& 2eperceiveno9!elter of distortions.ytheCourt of ,ppealsofpetitioner>s statement of its position9, as char0ed .ypetitioner. 2B 1or do!e su.scri.e topetitioner>saccusationthat respondent Carrascoso9surreptitiouslytoo"afirst classseat toprovo"e an issue9. 27 ,nd this .ecause, as petitioner states, Carrascoso !ent to see the4ana0er at his office in ?an0"o" 9to confirm my seat and .ecause from Sai0on I !as told a0aintoseethe4ana0er9. ' 2hy,then, !asheallo!edtota"eafirst classseat intheplaneat?an0"o", if he had no seatK Fr, if another had a .etter ri0ht to the seatK6. Petitioner assails respondent court>s a!ard of moral dama0es. Petitioner>s trenchant claim isthat Carrascoso>s action is planted upon .reach of contractD that to authorize an a!ard for moraldama0es there must .e an averment of fraud or .ad faithD'% and that the decision of the Court of,ppeals fails to ma"e a findin0 of .ad faith. 5he pivotal alle0ations in the complaint .earin0 onthis issue are/'. 5hat ... plaintiff entered into a contract of air carria0e !ith the Philippine ,ir =ines fora valua.le consideration, the latter actin0 as 0eneral a0ents for and in .ehalf of thedefendant, under !hich said contract, plaintiff !as entitled to, as defendant a0reed tofurnish plaintiff, First Class passa0e on defendant>s plane durin0 the entire duration ofplaintiff>stour of @urope!ithGon0"on0asstartin0point uptoanduntil plaintiff>sreturn trip to 4anila, ... .6. 5hat, durin0 the first t!o le0s of the trip from Gon0"on0 to Sai0on and from Sai0onto ?an0"o", defendant furnished to the plaintiff First Class accommodation .ut onlyafter protestations, ar0uments andNor insistence !ere made .y the plaintiff !ithdefendant>s employees.). 5hat finally, defendant failed to pro/ide First Class passa0e, .ut instead furnishedplaintiff only %oristClass accommodations from ?an0"o" to 5eheran andNorCasa.lanca, ... the plaintiff has .een co"pelled.y defendant>s employees to leave theFirst Class accommodation .erths at ?an0"o" after he was alread# seated.8. 5hat conse#uently,theplaintiff, desirin0norepetitionof theinconvenienceandem.arrassments .rou0ht .y defendant>s .reach of contract !as forced to ta"e a Pan,merican 2orld ,ir!ays plane on his return trip from 4adrid to 4anila.'2x x x x x x x x x2. 5hat li"e!ise, asaresult of defendant>sfailuretofurnishFirst Classaccommodationsaforesaid, plaintiff suffered inconveniences, em.arrassments, and humiliations, there.y causin0plaintiff mental an0uish, serious anxiety, !ounded feelin0s, social humiliation, and the li"e inCury,resultin0 in moral dama0es in the amount of P',.. ''x x x x x x x x x5hefore0oin0, inour opinion, su.stantiallyaver/ First, 5hat there!asacontract tofurnishplaintiff a first class passa0e coverin0, amon0st others, the ?an0"o"-5eheran le0D Second, 5hatsaid contract !as .reached !hen petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at ?an0"o"Dand %hird, that there !as .ad faith !hen petitioner>s employee compelled Carrascoso to leavehisfirst classaccommodation.erth 1after hewasalread#,seated1 andtota"easeat inthetourist class, .y reason of !hich he suffered inconvenience, em.arrassments and humiliations,there.y causin0 him mental an0uish, serious anxiety, !ounded feelin0s and social humiliation,resultin0 in moral dama0es. It is true that there is no specific mention of the term !ad faith in thecomplaint. ?ut, the inference of .ad faith is there, it may.edra!n fromthe facts andcircumstances set forth therein. '6 5he contract !as averred to esta.lish the relation .et!een theparties. ?ut the stress of the action is put on !ron0ful expulsion.Juite apart from the fore0oin0 is that $a- ri0ht the start of the trial, respondent>s counsel placedpetitioneron0uardon!hat Carrascosointendedtoprove/ 5hat !hilesittin0intheplanein?an0"o", Carrascoso !as osted.y petitioner>s mana0er !ho 0ave his seat to a !hitemanD ') and$.-evidenceof .adfaithinthefulfillment of thecontract !aspresented!ithouto.Cection on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore, unnecessary to in#uire as to !hether or notthere is sufficient averment in the complaint to Custify an a!ard for moral dama0es. s 4ana0er in?an0"o", thedefendant couldhaveeasilyprovenit .yhavin0ta"enthetestimony of the said 4ana0er .y deposition, .ut defendant did not do soDthe presumption isthatevidence!illfullysuppressed!ould .eadverse ifproduced (Sec. 87, par $e-, Rules of Court*D and, under the circumstances,theCourt isconstrainedtofind, asit doesfind, that the4ana0erof thedefendant airline in ?an0"o" not merely as"ed .ut threatened the plaintiff tothro! him out of the plane if he did not 0ive up his 9first class9 seat .ecausethe said 4ana0er !anted to accommodate, usin0 the !ords of the !itness@rnesto ;. Cuento, the 9!hite man9.'BIt is really correct to say that the Court of ,ppeals in the #uoted portion firsttranscri.ed did not use the term 9.ad faith9. ?ut can it .e dou.ted that the recital offacts therein points to .ad faithK 5he mana0er not only prevented Carrascoso fromenCoyin0 his ri0ht to a first class seatD !orse, he imposed his ar.itrary !illD he forci.lyeCected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of havin0 to 0o to the touristclass compartment - Cust to 0ive !ay to another passen0er !hose ri0ht thereto has not.een esta.lished. Certainly, this is .ad faith. Anless, of course, .ad faith has assumeda meanin0 different from !hat is understood in la!. For, 9.ad faith9 contemplates a9state of mind affirmatively operatin0 !ith furtive desi0n or !ith some motive of self-interest or !ill or for ulterior purpose.9 '7,nd if the fore0oin0 !ere not yet sufficient, there is the express findin0 of !ad faith inthe Cud0ment of the Court of First Instance, thus/5he evidence sho!s that the defendant violated its contract oftransportation !ith plaintiff in .ad faith, !ith the a00ravatin0 circumstancesthat defendant>s 4ana0er in ?an0"o" !ent to the extent of threatenin0 theplaintiff in the presence of many passen0ers to have him thro!n out of theairplane to 0ive the 9first class9 seat that he !as occupyin0 to, a0ain usin0the!ordsof the!itness@rnesto;. Cuento, a9!hiteman9 !homhe$defendant>s 4ana0er- !ished to accommodate, and the defendant has notproven that this 9!hite man9 had any 9.etter ri0ht9 to occupy the 9first class9seat that theplaintiff !as occupyin0, dulypaidfor, andfor !hichthecorrespondin0 9first class9 tic"et !as issued .y the defendant to him.6). 5he responsi.ility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees need not .e essayed. Itis!ell settledinla!. 6% For the!illful malevolent act of petitioner>smana0er, petitioner, hisemployer, must ans!er. ,rticle 2% of the Civil Code says/,R5. 2%. ,ny person !ho !illfully causes loss or inCury to another in a manner that iscontrary to morals, 0ood customs or pu.lic policy shall compensate the latter for thedama0e.In parallelcircumstances, !e applied the fore0oin0 le0al preceptD and, !e held that upon theprovisions of ,rticle 22%7 $%-, Civil Code, moral dama0es are recovera.le. 628. ,contract totransport passen0ersis#uitedifferent in"indandde0reefromanyothercontractual relation. 6',ndthis, .ecauseof therelation!hichanair-carriersustains!iththepu.lic. Its .usiness is mainly !ith the travellin0 pu.lic. It invites people to avail of the comfortsand advanta0es it offers. 5he contract of air carria0e, therefore, 0enerates a relation attended!ithapu.licduty. 1e0lect or malfeasanceof thecarrier>semployees, naturally, could0ive0round for an action for dama0es.Passen0ers do not contractmerely for transportation. 5hey have ari0htto.e treated .y thecarrier>s employees !ith "indness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. 5hey are entitled to.e protected a0ainst personal misconduct, inCurious lan0ua0e, indi0nities and a.uses from suchemployees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees to!ards apassen0er 0ives the latter an action for dama0es a0ainst the carrier. 665hus, 92here a steamship company 6) had accepted a passen0er>s chec", it !as a .reach ofcontract and a tort, 0ivin0 a ri0ht of action for its a0ent in the presence of third persons to falselynotify her that the chec" !as !orthless and demand payment under threat of eCection, thou0hthe lan0ua0e used !as not insultin0 and she !as not eCected.9 68 ,nd this, .ecause, althou0hthe relation of passen0er and carrier is 9contractual .oth in ori0in and nature9 nevertheless 9theact that .rea"s the contract may .e also a tort9. 6& ,nd in another case, 92here a passen0er onarailroad train, !hen the conductor came to collect his fare tendered himthecash fare to apoint !here the train !as scheduled not to stop, and told him that as soon as the train reachedsuch point he !ould pay the cash fare from that point to destination, there !as nothin0 in theconduct of the passen0er !hich Custified the conductor in usin0 insultin0 lan0ua0e to him, as .ycallin0 him a lunatic,9 6B and the Supreme Court of South Carolina there held the carrier lia.le forthe mental sufferin0 of said passen0er.1awph2l.n3tPetitioner>s contract !ith Carrascoso is one attended !ith pu.lic duty. 5he stress ofCarrascoso>s action as !e have said, is placed upon his !ron0ful expulsion. 5his is a violation ofpu.lic duty .y the petitioner air carrier 3 a case of qasi-delict. s testimony, thus 3J :ou mentioned a.out an attendant. 2ho is that attendant and purserK, 2hen !e left already 3 that !as already in the trip 3 I could not help it. So one ofthefli0ht attendantsapproachedmeandre#uestedfrommemytic"et andI said,2hat forK and she said, 92e !ill note that you transferred to the tourist class9. I said,91othin0 of that "ind. 5hat is tantamount to acceptin0 my transfer.9 ,nd I also said,9:ou are not 0oin0 to note anythin0 there .ecause I am protestin0 to this transfer9.J 2as she a.le to note itK, 1o, .ecause I did not 0ive my tic"et.J ,.out that purserK, 2ell, the seats there are so close that you feel uncomforta.le and you don>t haveenou0h le0 room, I stood up and I !ent to the pantry that !as next to me and thepurser !as there. Ge told me, 9I have recorded the incident in my note.oo".9 Ge readit andtranslatedit tome3.ecauseit !asrecordedinFrench39First classpassen0er !as forced to 0o to the tourist class a0ainst his !ill, and that the captainrefused to intervene.94r. H,=5@ 3I movetostri"eout thelast partof thetestimony ofthe!itness.ecausethe.estevidence !ould .e the notes. :our Gonor.CFAR5 3I !ill allo! that as part of his testimony. 67Petitioner char0es that the findin0 of the Court of ,ppeals that the purser made an entry in hisnote.oo" readin0 9First class passen0er !as forced to 0o to the tourist class a0ainst his !ill, andthat thecaptainrefusedtointervene9 ispredicateduponevidence(Carrascoso>stestimonya.ove* !hich is incompetent. 2e do not thin" so. 5he su.Cect of in#uiry is not the entry, .ut theouster incident. 5estimonyontheentrydoesnot come!ithintheproscriptionof the.estevidence rule. Such testimony is admissi.le. 67a?esides, from a readin0 of the transcript Cust #uoted, !hen the dialo0ue happened, the impact ofthe startlin0 occurrence !as still fresh and continued to .e felt. 5he excitement had not as yetdied do!n. Statements then, in this environment, are admissi.le as part of the res (estae. ) For,they 0ro! 9out of the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition of thedeclarant9. )% 5he utterance of the purser re0ardin0 his entry in the note.oo" !as spontaneous,and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trust!orthiness has .een0uaranteed. )2 It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res (estae.,t all events, the entry !as made outside the Philippines. ,nd, .y an employee of petitioner. It!ould have .een an easy matter for petitioner to have contradicted Carrascoso>s testimony. If it!ere really true that no such entry !as made, the deposition of the purser could have cleared upthe matter.2e, therefore, hold that the transcri.ed testimony of Carrascoso is admissi.le in evidence.B. @xemplary dama0es are !ell a!arded. 5he Civil Code 0ives the court ample po!er to 0rantexemplary dama0es 3 in contracts and #uasi- contracts. 5he only condition is that defendantshould have 9acted in a !anton, fraudulent, rec"less, oppressive, or malevolent manner.9 )' 5hemanner of eCectment of respondent Carrascosofromhisfirst classseat fitsintothisle0alprecept. ,nd this, in addition to moral dama0es.)67. 5he ri0ht to attorney>s fees is fully esta.lished. 5he 0rant of exemplary dama0es Custifies asimilar Cud0ment for attorneys> fees. 5he least that can .e said is that the courts .elo! felt that itis .ut Cust and e#uita.le that attorneys> fees .e 0iven. )) 2e do not intend to .rea" faith !ith thetradition that discretion !ell exercised 3 as it !as here 3 should not .e distur.ed.%. Juestioned as excessive are the amounts decreed .y .oth the trial court and the Court of,ppeals, thus/ P2),. as moral dama0esD P%,., .y !ay of exemplary dama0es, andP',. as attorneys> fees. 5hetas" of fixin0theseamountsis primarily!ith the trialcourt.)8 5heCourt of ,ppealsdidnot interfere!iththesame. 5hedictatesof 0oodsensesu00est that !e 0ive our imprimatur thereto. ?ecause, the facts and circumstances point to thereasona.leness thereof.)&Fn .alance, !e say that the Cud0ment of the Court of ,ppeals does not suffer from reversi.leerror. 2e accordin0ly vote to affirm the same. Costs a0ainst petitioner. So ordered.Concepcion, C.J., Re#es, J.'.+., 'arrera, 0i)on, Re(ala, ,a-alintal, .aldi/ar and Castro, JJ.,concr.'en()on, J.$., J., too- no part.G.R. No. L-2&003 %1,' 30, 1905FRANI#O ORTIGA#, %R., plaintiff-appellant-appellee, vs.L/FT.AN#A GERMAN AIRLINE#, defendant-appellant-appellee.'ai)as, *l!erto and *ssociates for appellant +fthansa 4er"an *irlines.$elae), Jalandoni and Ja"ir for appellant Francisco 5rti(as, Jr. $ARREDO, J.:cloc" andI !ould li"e to as" for apostponement to continue thecross examination.CFAR5/I !ill 0rant this for the last time. Fnmotion of ,tty. ?aizas, thecontinuation of the hearin0 ispostponed for the last time tos counsel, it !as reset for,u0ust 2), %788, on!hichdate, inspiteof thepresenceof =azzari !hocamefromRomepurposely for the trial to0ether !ith another expected !itness, Severino Caselli, and still another!itness, C.G. s aforesaid motion does not 0ive any valid reason forpostponin0 the hearin0, since it does not state !hy defendant>s !itnessescannot come to 4anila on the scheduled dates of continuation of trialD5hat theconvenienceandmotiveof defendant andits!itnessesinnotexertin0 every effort to testify are not the concern of the plaintiff, and moreso of this Gonora.le Court, and that the speedy and proper administration ofCustice dictates that the hearin0 proceed irrespective of defendant>s o.viousdisre0ard of the need thereoflD5hat defendant>sattitudeisa00ravated.ythefact that, .ein0anairlinecompany, it has all facilities to have its employees availa.le as !itnesses atany time it desires.2G@R@FFR@, it is respectfully prayed that defendant>s aforesaid motion forpostponement .e denied.... . $Pp. ))-)8, id.-In vie! of this opposition, on the same day, Gis Gonor issued an order of denial/1o reason !hatsoever havin0 .een alle0ed or sho!n !hy the defendant>s!itnesses !ill not .e a.le to come from Rome to 4anila on the day of thehearin0, andthiscasehavin0.eenpendin0sinces !itnesses to come as a letter ela.oratin0 on the matter !ouldsurely follo! the telex> messa0e. 5his re#uest !as ho!ever denied .y theGonora.le Court and upon motion of plaintiff>s counsel, another order !asissued stri"in0 out from the record the testimony of defendant>s only !itnessso far, Ivo =azzari, !hose cross-examination !as to .e continued that date,for thelatter>sfailuretoappear at thehearin0, anddeemin0thecasesu.mitted for decisionD6Itis alle0ed .y opposin0counselthat the !itnesses did not come for thehearin0 of Septem.er 2B, %788 .ecause it !as inconvenient for them andfor defendant. 5his accusation is a.solutely !ithout .asis and maliciousD)If inconvenience!eretheonlyreasonforthe!itnesses> failuretocome,thenthey!ouldnot alsohavecomepreviously.ecauseit !asCust asinconvenient for them then. It !ill .e recalled that Ivo =azzari had .een herein ,pril %788 !hen he !as presented on direct examination and partly oncross-examination. Fn ,u0ust 2), %788, the case !as alsoscheduled forhearin0. ,ll of defendant>s !itnesses came here from Rome, Italy for saidhearin0. @ven 4r. C. G. s counsel and 4rs. de la Riva verified the motion on 9information and .elief9 derived from 4r. s letter, their statements !ere hearsay thrice removed.6. ?ut assumin0 said facts to .e true, did this Custify the failure of defendant>s !itnesses to appear at the scheduled hearin0 or constitute a valid excuse for defendant>s ina.ility to present evidence. 2e respectfully su.mit that they do not. 5he Septem.er 2B hearin0 !as set as early as ,u0ust 2), %788, or more than one $%- month previous, to suit the schedules not only of this Gonora.le Court .ut of the parties as !ell. Surely, it !as incum.ent on defendant, if it has deference to this Gonora.le Court and our administration of Custice to see to it that its !itnesses,particularly Ivo =azzari !ho !as on the !itness stand and due for cross-examination, !ould .e availa.le, rather than 0rantin0 leave to its other employees and .urdenin0 the t!o needed !itnesses !ith additional !or". s counsel on Septem.er 22, %788, said counsel announcin0 that the trial could not proceed .ecause they !ere 0oin0 to resort to depositions of their !itnesses in Rome, rather than have said !itnesses come to 4anila. 5he decision to ta"e depositions havin0 .een made on or .efore Septem.er 2, it !as an easy matter to have =ufthansa>s Gon0"on0 office send the telex of Septem.er 22 statin0 that they !ould .e una.le to provide !itnesses on Septem.er 2B. 1o reason !as 0iven !hy !itnesses could not .e provided 8 or & days thence. If in truth there !as unexpected increase in air traffic, surely 8 or & days !ere more than sufficient to ma"e the necessary arran0ements so that the !or" of =azzari and Casilli could .e ta"en over temporarily Cust so these !itnesses could appear.efore this Gonora.le Court at the appointed date. ,ttached hereto as ,nnex 9,9 is the affidavit of ,tty. =eonardo P. Halmonte on his aforesaid conversation !ith ,tty. ,l.erto.8. ,t the hearin0 on Septem.er 2B, !hen !e made reference to the a.ove-referred to conversation .et!een ,ttys. Halmonte and ,l.erto, the latter did not deny that she had in truth spo"en to ,tty. Halmonte in the tenor a.ove related. ,s a matter of fact, she admitted that defendant !as intendin0 to ta"e the depositions of its !itnesses in Rome.&. 2hen this honora.le Court denied the motion for postponement on Septem.er 2B, %788, it didso in the exercise of its sound Cudicial discretion, for no valid reason !as 0iven !hy the !itnesses could not appear, !hereas this case had .een pendin0 for a.out three $'- years and had .een postponed several times !ith repeated !arnin0s on defendant that said postponements !ere for the last time. ,nd no!, in its motion for reconsideration, defendant has failed to effectively alle0e the 0round for the failure of said !itnesses to come, and even if said 0round .e admitted as true for ar0ument>s sa"e, it merely sho!ed 9inofficiousness, lac" of resourcefulness and dili0ence, if not total indifference9 on the part of defendant to protect in court its interests and to prevent needless delays in the dischar0e of Cudicial .usiness.9$ostpone"ent not !ased on /alid reasons. 3 2here a party see"s postponement of the hearin0 of this case for reasons caused .y his o!n inofficiousness, lac" of resourcefulness and dili0ence if not total indifference to his o!n interests or to the interests of those he represents, there.y resultin0 in his failure to present his o!n evidence, the court !ould not extend to him its mantle of protection. If it !as he !ho created the situation that .rou0ht a.out the resultin0 adverse conse#uences, he cannot plead for his day in court nor claim that he !as so denied of it.9 $s Gomesite and Gousin0 Corporation, C,-;.R. 1o. '%%87-R, ,u0. '%,%78'.-B. In the case of 6ap 6on( 6ardware Co. /s. $hilippine Co"pan#, ;R. 1o. =-%8&&' $4ay 2', %78%-, the Supreme Court, in sustainin0 the trial court>s denial of a motion for postponement andon the 0round that the defendant>s !itnesses, officers of the company, had not come .ecause it !as the .e0innin0 of the millin0 season in the municipality of San +ose, 4indoro Fccidental and their presence in the Central !as very, necessary, held that the trial court !as perfectly Custified in denyin0 said motion for postponement .ecause the reason adduced !as 9not unavoida.le and one that could not have .een foreseen.9 Said the Supreme Court/95he reason adduced in support of the motion for postponement is not unavoida.le and one thatcould not have .een foreseen. s counsel and su.mitted to Court. In other !ords, defendant purposely !aited until the su.mission of plaintiffs memorandum .efore presentin0 its motion for reconsideration .ased on alle0ed information received three $'- !ee"s previous. 5o 0rant defendant>s instant motion for reconsideration !ould place plaintiff at a 0reat disadvanta0e, .ecause defendant is no! fully a!are of every facet of plaintiff>s cause and can simply tailor its defenses and evidence in refutation thereof.%2. s ri0hts, and that !hile the Rules of Court should .e li.erally construed, their strict o.servance has .een considered indispensa.le to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy dischar0e of Cudicial .usiness. 5hus/9,lthou0h the Rules of Court should .e li.erally construed, ho!ever their strict o.servance !hich have .een considered indispensa.le to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy dischar0e of Cudicial .usiness, is as imperative necessity. 5hus, the rules prescri.in0 the time !ithin !hich certain act must .e done, or certain proceedin0s ta"en, are considered a.solutely indispensa.le to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy dischar0e of Cudicial .usiness, is as imperative necessity. 5hus, the rules prescri.in0 the time !ithin !hich certain act must .e done, or certain proceedin0s ta"en, are considered a.solutely indispensa.le to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy dischar0e of Cudicial .usiness and therefore must .e strictly complied !ith.9 $,lvero vs. s action cannot .e cate0orized as ar.itrary or oppressive or as amountin0 to a 0rave a.use of discretion. 5o .e sure, this second order !as .ut a lo0ical conse#uence of the previous order denyin0 defendant>smotion for postponement. 2ith such denial, the next thin0 in order !as to declare the presentation of evidence of the defendant terminated. ,ccordin0ly, it !as necessary to determine !hat evidence could .e considered to .e for the defendant. ,nd so !hen counsel for plaintiff as"ed the court to stri"e out the testimony so far 0iven .y =azarri, there !as practically no alternative for the court .ut to 0rant the same. Indeed, defendant>s counsel could not and did not offer any o.Cection thereto.Fral testimony may .e ta"en into account only !hen it is complete, that is, if the !itness has .een !holly cross-examined .y the adverse party or the ri0ht to cross-examine is lost !holly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party. ?ut !hen cross-examination is not and cannot .e done or completed due to causes attri.uta.le to the party offerin0 the !itness, the uncompleted testimony is there.y rendered incompetent.5he ri0ht of a party to cross-examine the !itnesses of his adversary is invalua.le as it is inviola.le in civil cases, no less than the ri0ht of the accused in criminal cases. 5he express reco0nition of such ri0ht of the accused in the Constitution does not render the ri0ht thereto of parties in civil cases less constitutionally .ased, for it is an indispensa.le part of the due process0uaranteed .y the fundamental la!. Su.Cect to appropriate supervision .y the Cud0e in order to avoid unnecessary delays on account of its .ein0 unduly protracted and to needed inCunctions protective of the ri0ht of the !itness a0ainst self-incrimination and oppressive and un!arranted harrassment and em.arrassment, a party is a.solutely entitled to a full cross-examination as prescri.ed in Section B of Rule %'2 thus/ 9Apon the termination of the direct examination, the !itness may .e cross-examined .y the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected there!ith, !ith sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or .ias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts.earin0 upon the issue.9 Antil such cross-examination has .een finished, the testimony of the !itness cannot .e considered as complete and may not, therefore, .e allo!ed to form part of theevidence to .e considered .y the court in decidin0 the case.In the case at .ar, ho!ever, 2e have opted not to rely exclusively on the fore0oin0 considerations. In order to satisfy Furselves as to !hether or not defendant stands to .e irrepara.ly preCudiced .y the impu0ned action of the trial court relative to the testimony of =azzari, 2e have Cust the same 0one over the transcript thereof. ,fter considerin0 the same, ho!ever, 2e are of the impression that even his direct testimony, !ithout ta"in0 into account anymore his ans!ers to the cross-examination #uestions of counsel for plaintiff, cannot .e of much !ei0ht in esta.lishin0 the defenses in defendant>s ans!er. ?ut it !ould seem more appropriate to ela.orate on this point !hen 2e come to the discussion of the mutual accusation of the parties that the trial court erred in the portion of its discretion a!ardin0 dama0es to plaintiff.5he last issue su.mitted for Fur resolution relates to the a!ard of dama0es made .y the trial court in favor of Frti0as a0ainst =ufthansa in the amounts aforestated, as to !hich, as already noted at the outset, .oth parties have appealed ta"in0 opposite positions. In this respect, the appealed decision made the follo!in0 findin0s and discussion of the material facts/In Fcto.er, %78', the Sharp 5ravel Service, the travel department of C. F. Sharp, Inc., the maCority interest-in-!hich is held .y Rocha y Cia., Inc., ;eneral ,0ents of the defendant, =ufthansa ;erman ,irlines issued to the plaintiff First Class Pan ,merican 5ic"et 1o. 28672%6&&8 to B% !hich !ould ta"e him from 4anila, the place of departure, to Gon0"on0, various cities in the Anited States, @urope, ,sia, the Far @ast, and then .ac" to 4anila, the place of destination. Frti0as> tic"et for all these different le0s of his Courney !as first class.Ge left 4anila Fcto.er %2, %78', as scheduled. In 1e! :or", he decided to leave out some cities, included in his ori0inal itinerary, to .e in Gon0"on0 on the %7th day of 1ovem.er, %78', forseveral appointments he had there. Ge !ent to the 5rans 2orld ,irlines and had his Pan ,merican tic"et chan0ed !ith First Class 52, 5ic"et 1o. %%)-68-6)%- B&B to BB%. Gis 52, tic"et !as also first class for the entire trip from 1e! :or" to several @uropean cities, includin0 Rome, and thence to the Far @ast, !ith 4anila also as the place of destination.Frti0as arrived in due course in Rome. 5o .e sure he could fly first class to Gon0"on0 on 1ovem.er %B, %78', for his appointments there the next day, Frti0as repaired to the office of the ,litalia on Saturday, 1ovem.er %8, %78', to .oo" passa0e. 5he man at the counter of the ,litaliaoffice told him it had no fli0ht on 4onday .ut the =ufthansa had. 5he man thereupon called up the office of the =ufthansa and, after tal"in0 to an employee thereof, told Frti0as that the =ufthansa had no first class, .ut only economy, seats availa.le on its 4onday fli0ht.Frti0as ans!ered that he !as not !illin0 to ta"e an economy seat and re#uested the employee to call up other airlines. 5hen the phone ran0. 5he employee ans!ered and after!ards informed Frti0as that the =ufthansa had a first class seat availa.le for its 4onday fli0ht. Frti0as immediately as"ed him to 0et the seat and to see to it that his tic"et .e confirmed and validated for the fli0ht and a first class seat. 5he man thereafter as"ed for Frti0as> passport and other travel papers and attached a validatin0 stic"er [email protected] 9 tic"et. 5he plaintiff replied he !as not satisfied !ith the arran0ement .ut !as constrained to a0ree to it .ecause he had to .e in Gon0"on0 the next day, his lu00a0e !as in all pro.a.ility already inside the plane, he !as not certain he could still secure a hotel reservation, the mana0er of the hotel !here he stayed havin0 told him it !ould .e hard for him to 0et another reservation once he chec"s out, and he !as assured he !ould .e 0iven first class passa0e from Cairo on!ard.Apon arrival in Cairo, the plaintiff re#uested the =ufthansa a0ent to transfer him to first class .ut the a0ent said he could not and that he did not receive any communication from Rome to that effect. Frti0as also re#uested the man to find out if there !ere other airlines havin0 planes leavin0 that day .ut his re#uest !as li"e!ise denied. 5he man, ho!ever, promised that at s tic"et .e produced and examined to see !ho had a .etter ri0ht to a first class seat !as turned do!n. So !as his e#ually simple re#uest that other airlines .e called to find out if any of them could accept him as a first class passen0er to Gon0"on0 that day. Ge !as deceived into .oardin0 the =ufthansa plane at Rome .y falsely assurin0 him he !ill .e transferred to first class at Cairo, the next stop in the fli0ht. 5he same false and deceptive promise !as 0iven him at s .ad faith is found in the fact that !hile its employee !as assurin0 the plaintiff he !ould .e transferred to first class in Cairo, he !as at the same time !ritin0 on his tic"et the follo!in0 notation/ 95RH=s a0ent cancelled said reservation, .ut expectin0 some cancellations .efore the fli0ht scheduled a.out a month later, the reservations supervisor decided to !ithhold the information from them, !ith the result that upon arrival in 5o"yo, the =opezes discovered they had no first class accommodations and !ere thus compelled to ta"e the tourist class, Cust so the senator could .e on time for his pressin0 en0a0ements in the AnitedStates. In the li0ht of these facts, the Court held there !as a .reach of the contract of carria0e and vie!ed as the element of .ad faith entitlin0 the plaintiffs to moral dama0es for such contractual .reach, the failure of the a0ents of the defendant to inform the plaintiffs on time that their reservation for first class had lon0 .efore .een cancelled .y mista"e. ,ccordin0 to the Court, such omission placed plaintiffs in a predicament that ena.led the company to "eep the plaintiffs as their passen0ers in the tourist class, there.y retainin0 the .usiness and promotin0 the company>s self-interest at the expense of, em.arrassment, discomfort and humiliation on thepart of the plaintiffs.In *ir France /s. Carrascoso 4 plaintiff 4r. Rafael Carrascoso, a civil en0ineer !ho !as 0oin0 to =ourdes, France, as a mem.er of a reli0ious 0roup of pil0rims !as issued .y the Philippine ,ir =ines, as a0ent of the defendant ,ir France, a tic"et for first class round trip from 4anila to Rome. From 4anila, Carrascoso travelled first class, as per said tic"et, .ut at ?an0"o", the 4ana0er of the defendant airline forced him to vacate the first class seat .ecause there !as a !hite man !ho alle0edly had a .etter ri0ht thereto, !ithout, ho!ever, sho!in0 him the .asis for such preference. Apon these factual premises, the Court held/It is really correct to say that the Court of ,ppeals in the #uoted portion first transcri.ed did not use the term P.ad faith>. ?ut can it .e dou.ted that the recital of facts therein points to .ad faithK 5he mana0er not only prevented Carrascoso from enCoyin0 his ri0ht to a first class seat, !orse, he imposed his ar.itrary !illD he forci.ly eCected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of havin0 to 0o to the tourist class compartment 3 Cust to 0ive !ay to another passen0er !hose ri0ht thereto has not .een esta.lished. Certainly, this is .ad faith. Anless, of course, .ad faith has assumed a meanin0 different from !hat is understood in la!. For, .ad faith, contemplates a 9state of mind affirmatively operatin0 !ith furtive desi0n or !ith some motive of self-interest or ill !ill or for ulterior purpose.9 $2ords L Phrases, Perm. @d., Hol. ), p. %', citin0 2arfield 1atural ;as Co. vs. ,llen, )7 S.2. $2d- )'6, )'B.-,nd if the fore0oin0 !ere not yet sufficient, there is the express findin0 of .ad faith in the Cud0ment of the Court of First Instance, thus/95he evidence sho!s that defendant violated its contract of transportation !ith plaintiff in!ad faith, with the a((ra/atin( circ"stances that defendant>s 4ana0er in ?an0"o" !ent to the extent of threatenin0 the plaintiff in the presence of many passen0ers to have him thro!n out of the airplane to 0ive the 9first class9 seat that he !as occupyin0 to, a0ain usin0 the !ords of the !itness @rnesto ;. Cuento, a 9!hite man9 !hom he $defendant>s 4ana0er- !ished to accommodate, and the defendant has not proven that this 9!hite man9 had any 9.etter ri0ht9 to occupy the 9first class9 seat that the plaintiff !as occupyin0, duly paid for, and for !hich the correspondin0 9first class9 tic"et !as issued .y the defendant to him.9 $R.,., p. &6D emphasis supplied.- $at pp. %88-%8&.-5hese precedents, as may .e seen, apply four-s#uare to herein plaintiffs case. s lia.ility for !illful and !anton .reach of its contract of carria0e !ith plaintiff is, therefore, indu.ita.le.Comin0 no! to the amount that should .e a!arded .y !ay of dama0es to the plaintiff, it is also the teachin0 of the cases aforecited that defendant is lia.le not only for moral .ut also for exemplary dama0es. ,s earlier stated, the court .elo! fixed the compensation for moral dama0es at P%, and the exemplary at P',. 5he Court .elieves that these amounts are not enou0h.,ccordin0 to the lo!er court/,lthou0h the plaintiff has not held any elective pu.lic office, he has ho!ever, a distin0uished record as a private citizen, a la!yer, .usinessman, a civic and reli0ious leader, a mem.er of numerous 0overnment .oards and or0anizations as !ell as of local and international .odies, and is the recipient of a!ards and citations for outstandin0 services and achievements.Ge !as, and still is, moreover sufferin0 from a heart ailment and has .een advised .y his physician to travel first class .ecause it is more relaxin0 and comforta.le. Gis position as chairman of the .oards of directors of the corporation he represented also re#uired that he travelin that manner. Ge !as, furthermore, carryin0 a special passport issued .y the Philippine ;overnment to represent it and .usiness corporations a.road.Gis sic"ness and the need for him to travel in the most comforta.le manner possi.le !ere made "no!n to the defendant>s employee, .ut he paid no heed to them. Instead, he en0a0ed Frti0as in a heated discussion, summarily .rushed off his protests and pleas, humiliated him, and tric"edhim into .oardin0 his employer>s plane, endan0erin0 there.y his health and o.li0in0 him to ta"e medicine to forestall an attac".5here is, finally, evidence that he !as discriminated a0ainst .ecause of his nationality for he !astold to yield his first class seat to a ?el0ian only after his passport !as examined and his Filipino citizenship must have .een noted. .Ander the circumstances and measured .y the criterion, Curisprudence has follo!ed, the compensation the plaintiff should .e entitled to receive must .e fixed at P%,. as moral dama0es, P',. as exemplary dama0es or corrective dama0es, and P2,. as attorney>s fees. $Pp. %%%-%%', Record on ,ppeal.-2e have revie!ed the evidence and 2e are convinced there is more than ample .asis for thesefindin0s. ?ut under the circumstances revealed in the record, it is Fur considered opinion that the a!ard of moral dama0es should .e increased to P%),.2e cannot 0o alon0 !ith defendant>s pose that in Cuenca the amount a!arded !as only P2,, for the very o.vious reason that in that case !hat !as involved !as only one le0 of thefli0ht contracted for, namely, that from F"ina!a to 5o"yo, !hereas in the case not at .ar, the offense !as repeated four times, at Rome, Cairo, s a0ents to plaintiff>s pli0ht. ?esides, it appears that Cuenca did not appeal from the trial court>s decision fixin0 said amount, hence there !as no occasion for the Supreme Court to a!ard more. 5his !as also !hat happened in the Carrascoso case, !here theplaintiff did not complain a0ainst the a!ard of only P2),-moral-and P%,-exemplary dama0es made .y the trial court. It !as ,ir France !ho claimed that these !ere even excessive.Herily, ho!ever, such, discriminatory acts of the defendants in those cases !hich !ere not only violative of their contractual o.li0ations .ut also offensive to human di0nity and national or racial pride constitute a.out the most Custifia.le 0round for the a!ard of moral dama0es, for the resultin0 inCury therefrom cannot .ut cause immense mental an0uish, .esmirched reputation, !ounded feelin0s, moral shoc" and social humiliation. $See ,rticle 22%& of the Civil Code.- 2e reiterate, they are to .e considered as infectin0 !ith .ad faith the .reach of contract committed, under ,rticle 222 of the same Code. $=opez vs. Pan ,m., spra.-=ufthansa su00ests that compared to the P%, a!arded to Hice President =opez in the caseaforementioned, the P%, 0iven .y the trial court to Frti0as are 90rossly excessive9. It does not appear to As to .e so. ,s pointed out .y Gis Gonor, 9althou0h plaintiff has not held any elective pu.lic office, he has, ho!ever, a distin0uished record as a private citizen, a la!yer, .usinessman, a civic and reli0ious leader, a mem.er of numerous .oards and or0anizations as !ell as local and international .odies, and is the recipient of a!ards and citations for outstandin0services and achievements.9 Indeed, under the proven facts in the record, 2e cannot re0ard plaintiff in any inferior position vis-a-vis Hice President =opez in the hi0hest circles of Philippine society and in the .usiness and reli0ious !orld, not to spea" of his standin0 in 0overnment officialdom.?eside there is a0ain the disparity .et!een then =opez case and this one that here the offense, !hich, as in Cuenca, is a00ravated .y the =ufthansa employee at Rome havin0 falsely noted on the tic"et that Frti0as !as travellin0 in economy from Rome to Gon0"on0, 5 !as repeated four times in the same trip, namely in Rome, Cairo, s advice to travelonly in first class, hence, his .ein0 compelled to stay in economy or tourist class durin0 the maCor part of his trip, must have 0iven him added apprehensive feelin0s a.out his safety. ,nd, moreover, it is to .enoted that in the =opez case, !hich !as decided in %788, aside from ta"in0 into account the personal circumstances of the plaintiff, the Court considered 9the present rate ofexchan0e and the terms at !hich amount of dama0es a!arded !ould approximately .e in A.S. dollars9, hence, 2e may not Custifia.ly do differently here..Furthermore, it may not .e amiss to mention here that in .leta /s. $an *"erican *irwa#s &nc., 6' SCR, '7&, the Court a!arded the plaintiffs/ Mulueta, the hus.and, his !ife and a minor dau0hter, a total of P&&), as dama0es consistin0 of P), as moral, P2, as exemplary and P&), as attorney>s fees, apart from actual dama0es. In that case, the Mulueta>s !ere comin0 home to 4anila from Gonolulu in a Pan-,merican plane. ,t 2a"e, ho!ever, !here the plane arrived at 6/ o>cloc" in the mornin0, Mulueta could not .e found at fli0ht time .ecause, !ithout lettin0 anyone "no!, not even his !ife or dau0hter, he had relieved himself, accordin0 to him, at the .each .ehind the terminal. 2hen at last, he !as found, the Pan-,m employee !ho first met him !hile !al"in0 .ac" from the .each remonstrated him thus/ 92hat in the hell do you thin" you areQ ;et on that plane.9 5his an0ered Mulueta !ho en0a0ed the said employee in an exchan0e of an0ry !ords. In the mean!hile, the pilot !ho had .een tipped .y a 9man from the State s evidence, the pilot !ent to the extent of referrin0 to him and his family as 9those mon"eys9. Altimately, the plane left !ithout Mulueta, al.eit his !ife and dau0hter !ere on .oard, .ecause the captain refused to allo! Mulueta to .oard until after his .a0s !ere opened and inspected, !hich Mulueta refused entirely to do. ,lthou0h, said decision is not yet final, .ecause of the pendency of a second motion for reconsideration the Court has not yet resolved, the Court has already allo!edthe partial execution of the Cud0ment, thus ena.lin0 Muluetas to collect already one-half of the amount or over P''),, !hich amount, accordin0 to the concurrin0 and dissentin0 opinion there of the !riter of the instant decision could .e the least that should any!ay .e allo!ed. Ff course, the Court did not itemize the a!ard .ut 0ranted the same to the family as a !hole, .ut it is evident that in the final distri.ution, Mulueta !ould 0et for himself from at least P%), to notmore than P2,. 62e hold that the fore0oin0 considerations Custify the increase of the a!ard of moral dama0es from P%, to P%),.Finally, 2e have the dispute re0ardin0 the amount of exemplary dama0es a!arded. In this respect, it is Fur considered opinion that defendant should Pay P%, instead of the P',a!arded .y the trial court. 5he record of this case ta"en to0ether !ith !hat are revealed in the other similar cases decided .y this Court, those aforediscussed, convinces As that defendant, as an airline, should .e made to pay an amount that can really serve as a deterrent a0ainst a seemin0 pattern of indifference and unconcern, and !hat is !orse, of discrimination for racial reasons, discerni.le in the treatment of air passen0ers. 5his is not the first case, and unless the proper sanctions are applied, it does not appear it is 0oin0 to .e the last yet, of instances !herein Filipino passen0ers havin0 validated and confirmed tic"ets for first class !ould .e shoved to the economy class, over their valid o.Cections and !ithout any re0ard at all to their feelin0s and convenience, only to favor other passen0ers presumed .y the airlines to .e of superior race, hence, deservin0 preference. It is hi0h time everyone concerned !ere made to realize that the la!s of the Philippines do not permit any act of discrimination a0ainst its citizens,specially !hen this accompanies a clear .reach of contractual o.li0ations of common carriers !hose .usiness is affected !ith pu.lic interest and must .e directed to serve the convenience and comfort of the passen0ers. 2hen any disre0ard of such la!s is committed, the Supreme Court, as the interpreter of such la!s, must exact the commensurate lia.ility !hich they contemplate.9@xemplary dama0es are re#uired .y pu.lic policy, for !anton acts must .e repressed. 5hey arean antidote so that the poison of !ic"edness may not run throu0h the .ody politic.9 $Report of Code Commission, pp. &)-&8- .y authority of the decided cases aforediscussed, 0 acts of similar nature as those herein involved fall !ithin the cate0ory of those Custifyin0 the imposition of exemplary dama0es pursuant to the codal concept Cust stated.5he rationale .ehind exemplary or corrective dama0es is, as the name implies, to provide an example or correction for pu.lic 0ood. ... In vie! of its nature, it should .e imposed in such an amount as to sufficiently and effectively deter similar .reach of contracts .y defendant or other airlines.9 $=opez v. Pan-,merican 2orld ,ir!ays, spra9 see also Rotea vs. Galili, %7 Phil. 67)D People vs. 4edroso, +r., ;.R. 1o. =-'&8'', +an. '%, %7&), 82 SCR, 26)D Cota.ato 5im.erland Co. Inc. vs. Plaridel =um.er Co., Inc., %' SCR, 2')- 5hus, all relevant matters considered, P%, of exemplary dama0es, !hich practically amounts only to not more than R%), A.S. under the present rate of exchan0e, !ould serve the ends for !hich the lia.ility has .een conceived.2G@R@FFR@, the Cud0ment appealed from is modified .y raisin0 the a!ard of moral and exemplary dama0es to plaintiff Frti0as to P%),. and P%,., respectively. In all other respects, includin0 as to the payment of interests on the said amounts, the same is affirmed.Fernando :Chair"an;, *ntonio, *qino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concrP.ILIPPINE AIR LINE#, petitioner, vs. FLORANTE A. MIANO, respondent.P/NO, J.:5he petitioner #uestions the s fli0ht PR &22, 4a.uhay Class, .ound for Fran"furt, ;ermany. Ge had an immediate on!ard connectin0 fli0ht via =ufthansa fli0ht =G %6)2 to Hienna, ,ustria. ,t the 1inoy ,#uino International ,irport, he chec"ed-in one .ro!n suitcase !ei0hin0 t!enty $2- "ilo0rams 2 .ut did not declare a hi0her valuation. Ge claimed that his suitcase contained money, documents, one 1i""on camera !ith zoom lens, suits, s!eaters, shirts, pants, shoes, and other accessories. 3Apon private respondent>s arrival at Hienna via =ufthansa fli0ht =G %6)2, his chec"ed-in .a00a0e !as missin0. Ge reported the matter to the =ufthansa authorities. ,fter three $'- hours of !aitin0 in vain, he proceeded to Piestany, Czechoslova"ia. @leven $%%- days after or on Septem.er %%, %7BB, his suitcase !as delivered to him in his hotel in Piestany, Czechoslova"ia. Ge claimed that .ecause of the delay in the delivery of his suitcase, he !as forced to .orro! money to .uy some clothes, to pay R2. for the transportation of his .a00a0e from Hienna to Piestany, and lost his 1i""on camera. 4In 1ovem.er %7BB, private respondent !rote to petitioner a letter demandin0/ $%- P%,. cost of alle0edly lost 1i""on cameraD $2- R2. for alle0ed cost of transportin0 lu00a0e from Hienna to PiestanyD and $'- P%,. as dama0es. In its reply, petitioner informed private respondent that his letter !as for!arded to its le0al department for investi0ation.Private respondent felt his demand letter !as left unheeded. Ge instituted an action for s .a00a0e, .ut !as dismissed for its failure to prosecute.In its decision, the trial court o.served that petitioner>s actuation !as not attended .y .ad faith. 1evertheless, it a!arded private respondent dama0es and attorney>s fees, the dispositive portion of !hich reads/2G@R@FFR@, Cud0ment is here.y rendered in favor of the plaintiff $private respondent- and a0ainst the defendant $petitioner-, there.y orderin0 the latter to pay the follo!in0/$a- A.S. R2. as cost of transportin0 the suitcase from Hienna to Czechoslova"iaD$.- P6,. as moral dama0esD$c- P2,. as exemplary dama0esD and$d- P%),. as attorney>s fees.SF FRs fees must also .e disallo!ed for lac" of le0al le0 to stand on. 5he fact that private respondent !as compelled to liti0ate and incur expenses to protect and enforce his claim did not Custify the a!ard of attorney>s fees. 5he 0eneral rule is that attorney>s fees cannot .e recovered as part of dama0es .ecause of the policy that no premium should .e placed on the ri0ht to liti0ate. 16 Petitioner is !illin0 to pay the Cust claim of R2. as a result of the delay in the transportation of the lu00a0e in accord !ith the 2arsa! Convention. 1eedless to say, the a!ard of attorney>s fees must .e deleted !here the a!ard of moral and exemplary dama0es areeliminated.I1 HI@2 2G@R@FF, the assailed cloc" in the afternoon of that same day, the 4NH 9s fees, plus costs of the suit. 11e0ros 1avi0ation, Capt. Santiste.an, P1FC and P1FC Shippin0 appealed the trial court>s decision to the Court of ,ppeals. =ater, P1FC and P1FC Shippin0 !ithdre! their appeal citin0 a compromise a0reement reached .y them !ith 1e0ros 1avi0ationD the Court of ,ppeals 0ranted the motion .y a resolution dated ) Septem.er %7BB, su.Cect to the reservation made .y =ilia Ciocon that she could not .e .ound .y the compromise a0reement and !ould enforce the a!ard 0ranted her .y the trial court.In time, the Court of ,ppeals rendered a decision dated 28 +anuary %7B7 !hich decreed the follo!in0/2G@R@FFR@, in vie! of the fore0oin0, the decision of the court a #uo is here.y affirmed as modified !ith respect to Civil Case 1o. '%)2), !herein defendant appellant 1e0ros 1avi0ation Co. Inc. and Capt. Ro0er Santiste.an are held Cointly and severally lia.le to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P%,.as actual and compensatory dama0es and P%),. as attorney>s fees and the cost of the suit. 25he issue to .e resolved in this Petition for Revie! is !hether or not the Court of ,ppeals had erred in reducin0 the amount of the dama0es a!arded .y the trial court to the petitioners from P6,. to P%,..2e note that the trial court had 0ranted petitioners the sum of P6,, 9for the death of ?their parents@9 plus P%),. as attorney>s fees, !hile the Court of ,ppeals a!arded them P%,. 9as actal and co"pensator# da"a(es9 and P%),. as attorney>s fees. 5o determine !hether such reduction of the dama0es a!arded !as proper, !e must first determine !hether petitioners !ere entitled to an a!ard of dama0esother than actual or compensatory dama0es, that is, !hether they !ere entitled to a!ard of moral and exemplary dama0es.2e .e0in .y notin0 that .oth the trial court and the Court of ,ppeals considered the action $Civil Case 1o. J-'%)2)- .rou0ht .y the sons and dau0hters of the deceased 4ecenas spouses a0ainst 1e0ros 1avi0ation as .ased on #uasi-delict. 2e .elieved that action is more appropriately re0arded as 0rounded on contract, the contract of carria0e .et!een the 4ecenas spouses as re0ular passen0ers !ho paid for their .oat tic"ets and 1e0ros 1avi0ationD the survivin0 children !hile not themselves passen0ers are in effect suin0 the carrier in representation of their deceased parents. 3 5hus, the suit $Civil Case 1o. J-''7'2- filed .y the !ido! =ilia Ciocon !as correctly treated .y the trial and appellate courts as .ased on contract $vis-a-vis 1e0ros 1avi0ation- and as !ell on #uasi-delict $vis-a-vis P1FC and P1FC Shippin0-. In an action .ased upon a .reach of the contract of carria0e, the carrier under our civil la! is lia.le for the death of passen0ers arisin0 from the ne0li0ence or !illful act of the carrier>s employees althou0h such employees may have acted .eyond the scope of their authority or even in violation of the instructions of the carrier, 4!hich lia.ility may include lia.ility for moral dama0es. 5 It follo!s that petitioners !ould .e entitled to moral dama0es so lon0 as the collision !ith the 95aclo.an City9 and the sin"in0 of the 9 claim for exemplary dama0es, it is only necessary to refer to ,rticle 22'2 of the Civil Code/,rticle 2''2. In contracts and #uasi-contracts, the court may exemplary dama0es if the defendant acted in a !anton, fraudulent, rec"less, oppressive or malevolent manner. 65hus, !hether petitioners are entitled to exemplary dama0es as claimed must depend upon !hether or not private respondents acted rec"lessly, that is, !ith 0ross ne0li0ence.2e turn, therefore, to a consideration of !hether or not 1e0ros 1avi0ation and Capt. Santiste.an !ere 0rossly ne0li0ent durin0 the events !hich culminated in the collision !ith 95aclo.an City9 and the sin"in0 of the 9s red and 0reen li0hts, !hen .oth vessels are head on or nearly head on, each vessel must turn to the ri0ht in order to avoid each other. $p. ), I.id-. 1onetheless, 5aclo.an appeared to .e headin0 to!ards s .reach of its contract.,part from this, there can .e no dou.t that s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to liti0ate !ith third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest,9'6 or 9!here the court deems it Cust and e#uita.le.9') 2G@R@FFR@, no error .ein0 perceived in the challen0ed decision of the Court of ,ppeals, it appearin0 on the contrary to .e entirely in accord !ith the facts and the la!, said decision is here.y ,FFIR4@s remains and she told the director that they !ere .oo"ed !ith Anited ,irlines. ?ut the director toldher that the remains !ere .oo"ed !ith 52, fli0ht to California. 5his upset her, and she and her .rother had to chan0e reservations from A, to the 52, fli0ht after she confirmed .y phone that her mother>s remains should .e on that 52, fli0ht. 5hey !ent to the airport and !atched from the loo"-out area. She sa! no .ody .ein0 .rou0ht. So, she !ent to the 52, counter a0ain, and she !as told there !as no .ody on that fli0ht. Reluctantly, they too" the 52, fli0ht upon assurance of her cousin, ,ni ?antu0, that he !ould loo" into the matter and inform her a.out it on the plane or have it radioed to her. ?ut no confirmation from her cousin reached her that her mother !as on the 2est Coast.Apon arrival at San Francisco at a.out )/ p.m., she !ent to the 52, counter there to in#uire a.out her mother>s remains. She !as told they did not "no! anythin0 a.out it.She then called Pomiers"i that her mother>s remains !ere not at the 2est Coast terminal, and Pomiers"i immediately called C.4.,.S., !hich in a matter of % minutes informed him that the remains !ere on a plane to 4exico City, that there !ere t!o .odies at the terminal, and someho! they !ere s!itchedD he relayed this information to 4iss Saludo in CaliforniaD later C.4.,.S. called and told him they !ere sendin0 the remains .ac" to California via 5exas $see @xh. 8-52,-.It-turned out that 52, had carried a shipment under P,= ,ir!ay ?ill 1o. &7-FR memo and enclosed it in their $Pomiers"i>s la!yers- ans!er dated +uly %B, %7B% to herein plaintiff>s counsel $See @xh. )-52,-.In that memo or incident report $@xh. 8-52,-, it is stated that the remains $of Crispina Saludo- !ere ta"en to C4,S at the airportD that there !ere t!o .odies at the $Chica0o ,irport- terminal, and someho! they !ere s!itched, that the remains $of Crispina Saludo- !ere on a plane to 4exico CityD that C4,S is a national service used .y underta"ers throu0hout the nation $A.S.,.-, ma"es all the necessary arran0ements, such as fli0hts, transfers, etc., and see$s- to it that the remains are ta"en to the proper air frei0ht terminal.5he follo!in0 day Fcto.er 2B, %7&8, the shipment or remains of Crispina Saludo arrived $in- SanFrancisco from 4exico on .oard ,merican ,irlines. 5his shipment !as transferred to or received.y P,= at %76)G or &/6) p.m. $@xh. 2-P,=, @xh. 2-a-P,=-. 5his cas"et .earin0 the remains of Crispina Saludo, !hich !as mista"enly sent to 4exico and !as opened $there-, !as resealed .yCrispin F. Pata0as for shipment to the Philippines $See @xh. ?-%-. 5he shipment !as immediately loaded on P,= fli0ht for 4anila that same evenin0 and arrived $in- 4anila on Fcto.er ', %7&8, a day after its expected arrival on Fcto.er 27, %7&8. 3In a letter dated counsel informed private respondent 5rans 2orld ,irlines $52,- of the misshipment and eventual delay in the delivery of the car0o containin0 the remains of the late Crispin Saludo, and of the discourtesy of its employees to petitioners 4aria Salvacion Saludo and Saturnino Saludo. In a separate letter on +une %, %7&& addressed to co-respondent Philippine ,irlines $P,=-, 5 petitioners stated that they !ere holdin0 P,= lia.le for said delay in delivery and !ould commence Cudicial action should no favora.le explanation .e 0iven.?oth private respondents denied lia.ility. 5hus, a dama0e suit 6 !as filed .y petitioners .efore the then Court of First Instance, ?ranch III, =eyte, prayin0 for the a!ard of actual dama0es of P),., moral dama0es of P%,,., exemplary dama0es, attorney>s fees and costs ofsuit.,s earlier stated, the court .elo! a.solved the t!o respondent airlines companies of lia.ility. 5he Court of ,ppeals affirmed the decision of the lo!er court in toto, and in a su.se#uent resolution, 0 denied herein petitioners> motion for reconsideration for lac" of merit.In predicta.le disa0reement and dissatisfaction !ith the conclusions reached .y respondent appellate court, petitioners no! ur0e this Court to revie! the appealed decision and to resolve !hether or not $%- the delay in the delivery of the cas"eted remains of petitioners> mother !as due to the fault of respondent airline companies, $2- the one-day delay in the delivery of the same constitutes contractual .reach as !ould entitle petitioners to dama0es, $'- dama0es are recovera.le .y petitioners for the humiliatin0, arro0ant and indifferent acts of the employees of 52, and P,=, and $6- private respondents should .e held lia.le for actual, moral and exemplarydama0es, aside from attorney>s fees and liti0ation expenses. &,t the outset and in vie! of the spirited exchan0es of the parties on this aspect, it is to .e stressed that only #uestions of la! may .e raised in a petition filed in this Court to revie! on certiorari the decision of the Court of ,ppeals. 9 5his .ein0 so, the factual findin0s of the Court of ,ppeals are final and conclusive and cannot .e revie!ed .y the Supreme Court. 5he rule, ho!ever, admits of esta.lished exceptions, to !it/ $a- !here there is 0rave a.use of discretionD $.- !hen the findin0 is 0rounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conCecturesD$c- !hen the inference made is manifestly-mista"en, a.surd or impossi.leD $d- !hen the Cud0ment of the Court of ,ppeals !as .ased on a misapprehension of factsD $e- !hen the factual findin0s are conflictin0D $f- !hen the Court of ,ppeals, in ma"in0 its findin0s, !ent .eyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of .oth appellant and appelleeD 10 $0- !hen the Court of ,ppeals manifestly overloo"ed certain relevant facts not disputed .y the parties and !hich, if properly considered, !ould Custify a different conclusionD 11 and $h- !here the findin0s of fact of the Court of ,ppeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions !ithout citation of specific evidence, or !here the facts of set forth .y the petitioner are not disputed .y the respondent, or !here the findin0s of fact of the Court of ,ppeals are premised on the a.sence of evidence and are contradicted .y the evidence on record. 125o distin0uish, a #uestion of la! is one !hich involves a dou.t or controversy on !hat the la! is on a certain state of factsD and, a #uestion of fact, contrarily, is one in !hich there is a dou.t or difference as to the truth or falsehood of the alle0ed facts. 13 Fne test, it has .een held, is !hether the appellate court can determine the issue raised !ithout revie!in0 or evaluatin0 the evidence, in !hich case it is a #uestion of la!, other!ise it !ill .e a #uestion of fact. 14Respondent airline companies o.Cect to the present recourse of petitioners on the 0round that this petition raises only factual #uestions. 15 Petitioners maintain other!ise or, alternatively, they are of the position that, assumin0 that the petition raises factual #uestions, the same are !ithin the reco0nized exceptions to the 0eneral rule as !ould render the petition co0niza.le and !orthy of revie! .y the Court. 16Since it is precisely the soundness of the inferences or conclusions that may .e dra!n from the factual issues !hich are here .ein0 assayed, !e find that the issues raised in the instant petitionindeed !arrant a second loo" if this liti0ation is to come to a reasona.le denouement. , discussion seriati" of said issues !ill further reveal that the se#uence of the events involved is in effect disputed. =i"e!ise to .e settled is !hether or not the conclusions of the Court of ,ppeals su.Cect of this revie! indeed find evidentiary and le0al support.I. Petitioners fault respondent court for 9not findin0 that private respondents failed to exercise extraordinary dili0ence re#uired .y la! !hich resulted in the s!itchin0 andNor misdelivery of the remains of Crispina Saludo to 4exico causin0 0ross delay in its shipment to the Philippines, andconse#uently, dama0es to petitioners.9 10Petitioner alle0e that private respondents received the cas"eted remains of petitioners> mother on Fcto.er 28, %7&8, as evidenced .y the issuance of P,= ,ir 2ay.ill 1o. &7-%%B6)6 1& .y ,ir Care International as carrier>s a0entD and from said date, private respondents !ere char0ed !ith the responsi.ility to exercise extraordinary dili0ence so much so that for the alle0ed s!itchin0 of the cas"ets on Fcto.er 2&, %7&8, or one day after private respondents received the car0o, the latter must necessarily .e lia.le.5o support their assertion, petitioners rely on the Curisprudential dictum, .oth under ,merican and Philippine la!, that 9$t-he issuance of a .ill of ladin0 carries the presumption that the 0oods !ere delivered to the carrier issuin0 the .ill, for immediate shipment, and it is no!here #uestioned that a .ill of ladin0 is pri"a facie evidence of the receipt of the 0oods .y the carrier. . . . In the a.sence of convincin0 testimony esta.lishin0 mista"e, recitals in the .ill of ladin0 sho!in0 that the carrier received the 0oods for shipment on a specified date control $%' C.+.S. 2')-.919, .ill of ladin0 is a !ritten ac"no!led0ment of the receipt of the 0oods and an a0reement to transport and deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on his order. Such instrument may .e called a shippin0 receipt, for!arder>s receipt and receipt for transportation. 20 5he desi0nation, ho!ever, is immaterial. It has .een hold that frei0ht tic"ets for .us companies as !ell as receipts for car0o transported .y all forms of transportation, !hether .y sea or land, fall !ithin the definition. Ander the 5ariff and Customs Code, a .ill of ladin0 includes air!ay .ills of ladin0. 21 5he t!o-fold character of a .ill of ladin0 is all too familiarD it is a receipt as to the #uantity and description of the 0oods shipped and a contract to transport the 0oods to the consi0nee or other person therein desi0nated, on the terms specified in such instrument. 22=o0ically, since a .ill of ladin0 ac"no!led0es receipt of 0oods to .e transported, delivery of the 0oods to the carrier normally precedes the issuance of the .illD or, to some extent, delivery of the0oods and issuance of the .ill are re0arded in commercial practice as simultaneous acts. 23 Go!ever, except as may .e prohi.ited .y la!, there is nothin0 to prevent an inverse order of events, that is, the execution of the .ill of ladin0 even prior to actual possession and control .y the carrier of the car0o to .e transported. 5here is no la! !hich re#uires that the delivery of the 0oods for carria0e and the issuance of the coverin0 .ill of ladin0 must coincide in point of time or, for that matter, that the former should precede the latter.Frdinarily, a receipt is not essential to a complete delivery of 0oods to the carrier for transportation .ut, !hen issued, is competent and pri"a facie, .ut not conclusive, evidence of delivery to the carrier. , .ill of ladin0, !hen properly executed and delivered to a shipper, is evidence that the carrier has received the 0oods descri.ed therein for shipment. @xcept as modified .y statute, it is a 0eneral rule as to the parties to a contract of carria0e of 0oods in connection !ith !hich a .ill of ladin0 is issued recitin0 that 0oods have .een received for transportation, that the recital .ein0 in essence a receipt alone, is not conclusive, .ut may .e explained, varied or contradicted .y parol or other evidence. 242hile !e a0ree !ith petitioners> statement that 9an air!ay .ill estops the carrier from denyin0 receipt of 0oods of the #uantity and #uality descri.ed in the .ill,9 a further readin0 and a more faithful #uotation of the authority cited !ould reveal that 9$a- .ill of ladin0 may contain constituentelements of estoppel and thus .ecome somethin0 more than a contract .et!een the shipper and the carrier. . . . $Go!ever-, as .et!een the shipper and the carrier,when no (oods ha/e !een deli/ered for ship"ent no recitals in the !ill can estop the carrier fro" showin( the tre facts . . . 'etween the consi(nor of (oods and recei/in( carrier, recitals in a !ill of ladin( as to the (oods shipped raise onl# a re!tta!le pres"ption that sch (oods were deli/ered for ship"ent. *s !etween the consi(nor and a recei/in( carrier, the fact "st otwei(h the recital.1 25 $@mphasis supplied-For this reason, !e must perforce allo! explanation .y private respondents !hy, despite the issuance of the air!ay .ill and the date thereof, they deny havin0 received the remains of Crispina Saludo on Fcto.er 28, %7&8 as alle0ed .y petitioners.5he findin0s of the trial court, as favora.ly adopted .y the Court of ,ppeals and !hich !e have earner #uoted, provide us !ith the explanation that sufficiently over comes the presumption relied on .y petitioners in insistin0 that the remains of their mother !ere delivered to and received .y private respondents on Fcto.er 28, %7&8. 5hus 3. . . Philippine Hice Consul in Chica0o, Illinois, ?ienvenido 4. =laneta, at '/ p.m. on Fcto.er 28, %7&8 at the Pomiers"i L Son Funeral Gome, sealed the shippin0 case containin0 a hermetically sealed cas"et that is airti0ht and !aterproof !herein !as contained the remains of Crispina Saludo ;aldo $sic- $@xh. ?-. 5n the sa"e date 5cto!er 8H, 1AFH, $o"iers-i !ro(ht the re"ains to C.,.*.S. :Continental ,ortar# *ir Ser/ices; at the airport :Chica(o; which "adethe necessar# arran(e"ents sch as fli(hts, transfers, etcD C.4.,.S. is a national service used .y underta"ers throu0hout the nation $A.S.,.-, they furnish the air pouch !hich the cas"et is enclosed in, and the# see that the re"ains are ta-en to the proper air frei(ht ter"inal :Jo. DFA-D11BDEGE dated 5cto!er 8F, 1AFH $sic, 9%N28N&89-. P,= confirmed the .oo"in0 and transportin0 of the shipment on .oard of its Fli0ht PR %& on Fcto.er 2&, %7&8 on the .asis of the representation of the shipper andNor C4,S that the said car0o !ould arrive in San Francisco from Chica0o on .oard Anited ,irlines Fli0ht AS %2% on 2& Fcto.er %7&8. 20In other !ords, on Fcto.er 28, %7&8 the car0o containin0 the cas"eted remains of Crispina Saludo !as .oo"ed for P,= Fli0ht 1um.er PR-%& leavin0 San Francisco for 4anila on Fcto.er 2&, %7&8, P,= ,ir!ay ?ill 1o. &7-%%B6)6 !as issued, not as evidence of receipt of delivery ofthe car0o on Fcto.er 28, %7&8, .ut merely as a confirmation of the .oo"in0 thus made for the San Francisco-4anila fli0ht scheduled on Fcto.er 2&, %7&8. ,ctually, it !as not until Fcto.er 2B,%7&8 that P,= received physical delivery of the .ody at San Francisco, as duly evidenced .y theInterline Frei0ht 5ransfer 4anifest of the ,merican ,irline Frei0ht System and si0ned for .y Hir0ilio Rosales at %76)G, or &/6) P.4. on said date. 2&@xplicit is the rule under ,rticle %&'8 of the Civil Code that the extraordinary responsi.ility of the common carrier .e0ins from the time the 0oods are delivered to the carrier. 5his responsi.ility remains in full force and effect even !hen they are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit, unless the shipper or o!ner exercises the ri0ht of stoppa0e in transit, 29 and terminates only after the lapse of a reasona.le time for the acceptance, of the 0oods .y the consi0nee or such other person entitled to receive them. 30 ,nd, there is delivery to the carrier !hen the 0oods are ready for and have .een placed in the exclusive possession, custody and control of the carrier for the purpose of their immediate transportation and the carrier has accepted them. 31 2here such a delivery has thus .een accepted .y the carrier, the lia.ility of the common carrier commences eo instanti. 32Gence, !hile !e a0ree !ith petitioners that the extraordinary dili0ence statutorily re#uired to .e o.served .y the carrier instantaneously commences upon delivery of the 0oods thereto, for suchduty to commence there must in fact have .een delivery of the car0o su.Cect of the contract of carria0e. Fnly !hen such fact of delivery has .een une#uivocally esta.lished can the lia.ility for loss, destruction or deterioration of 0oods in the custody of the carrier, a.sent the exceptin0 causes under ,rticle %&'6, attach and the presumption of fault of the carrier under ,rticle %&') .e invo"ed.,s already demonstrated, the facts in the case at .ar .elie the averment that there !as delivery of the car0o to the carrier on Fcto.er 28, %7&8. Rather, as earlier explained, the .ody intended to .e shipped as a0reed upon !as really placed in the possession and control of P,= on Fcto.er 2B, %7&8 and it !as from that date that private respondents .ecame responsi.le for the a0reed car0o under their underta"in0s in P,= ,ir!ay ?ill 1o. &7-%%B6)6. Conse#uently, for the s!itchin0 of cas"ets prior thereto !hich !as not caused .y them, and su.se#uent events caused there.y, private respondents cannot .e held lia.le.Petitioners, proceedin0 on the premise that there !as delivery of the car0o to private respondents on Fcto.er 28,%7&8 and that the latter>s extraordinary responsi.ility had .y then .ecome operative, insist on foistin0 the .lame on private respondents for the s!itchin0 of the t!o cas"ets !hich occurred on Fcto.er 2&, %7&8. It is ar0ued that since there is no clear evidence esta.lishin0 the fault Continental 4ortuary ,ir Services $C4,S- for the mix-up, private respondents are presuma.ly ne0li0ent pursuant to ,rticle %&') of the Civil Code and, for failure to re.ut such presumption, they must necessarily .e held lia.leD or, assumin0 that C4,S !as at fault, the same does not a.solve private respondents of lia.ility .ecause !hoever .rou0ht the car0o to the airport or loaded it on the plane did so as a0ent of private respondents.5his contention is !ithout merit. ,s pithily explained .y the Court of ,ppeals/5he air!ay .ill expressly provides that 9Carrier certifies 0oods descri.ed .elo! !ere received for carria0e9, and said car0o !as 9cas"eted human remains of Crispina Saludo,9 !ith 94aria Saludo as Consi0neeD Pomiers"i F.G. as ShipperD ,ir Care International as carrier>s a0ent.9 Fn the face of the said air!ay .ill, the specific fli0ht num.ers, specific routes of shipment and dates of departure and arrival !ere type!ritten, to !it/ Chica0o 52, Fli0ht %'%N2& to San Francisco and from San Francisco .y P,= %& on, Fcto.er 2&, %7&8 to Philippines and to Ce.u via P,= Fli0ht %67 on Fcto.er 27, %7&8. 5he air!ay .ill also contains the follo!in0 type!ritten !ords, as follo!s/ all documents have .een examined $sic-. Guman remains of Crispina Saludo. Please return .ac" $sic- first availa.le fli0ht to SFF.?ut, as it turned out and !as discovered later the cas"eted human remains !hich !as issued P,= ,ir!ay ?ill S&7-%%B6)6 !as not the remains of Crispina Saludo, the cas"et containin0 herremains havin0 .een shipped to 4exico City.Go!ever, it should .e noted that, Pomiers"i F.G., the shipper of 4rs. Saludo>s remains, hired Continental 4ortuary Services $hereafter referred to as C.4.,.S.-, !hich is en0a0ed in the .usiness of transportin0 and for!ardin0 human remains. 5hus, C.4.,.S. made all the necessaryarran0ements such as fli0hts, transfers, etc. 3 for shipment of the remains of Crispina Saludo.5he remains !ere ta"en on Fcto.er 28th, %7&8, to C.4.,.S. at the airport. 5hese people made all the necessary arran0ements, such as fli0hts, transfers, etc. 5his is a national service used .y underta"ers throu0hout the nation. 5hey furnished the air pouch !hich the cas"et is enclosed in,and they see that the remains are ta"en to the proper air frie0ht terminal. I !as very surprised !hen 4iss Saludo called me to say that the remains !ere not at the !est coast terminal. & i""ediatel# called C.,.*.S. %he# called "e !ac- in a "atter of ten "intes to infor" "e that the re"ains were on a plane to ,es lia.ility. 44In the case at .ar, private respondents had no reason !hatsoever to dou.t the truth of the shipper>s representations. 5he air!ay .ill expressly providin0 that 9carrier certifies 0oods received .elo! !ere received for carria0e,9 and that the car0o contained 9cas"eted human remains of Crispina Saludo,9 !as issued on the .asis of such representations. 5he reliance thereon .y private respondents !as reasona.le and, for so doin0, they cannot .e said to have acted ne0li0ently. =i"e!ise, no evidence !as adduced to su00est even an iota of suspicion that the car0o presented for transportation !as anythin0 other than !hat it !as declared to .e, as !ould re#uire more than routine inspection or call for the carrier to insist that the same .e opened for scrutiny of its contents per declaration.1either can private respondents .e held accounta.le on the .asis of petitioners> preposterous proposition that !hoever .rou0ht the car0o to the airport or loaded it on the airplane did so as a0ent of private respondents, so that even if C4,S !hose services !ere en0a0ed for the transitarran0ements for the remains !as indeed at fault, the lia.ility therefor !ould supposedly still .e attri.uta.le to private respondents.2hile !e a0ree that the actual participation of C4,S has .een sufficiently and correctly esta.lished, to hold that it acted as a0ent for private respondents !ould .e .oth an inaccurate appraisal and an un!arranted cate0orization of the le0al position it held in the entire transaction.It .ears repeatin0 that C4,S !as hired to handle all the necessary shippin0 arran0ements for the transportation of the human remains of Crispina Saludo to 4anila. Gence, it !as to C4,S that the Pomiers"i L Son Funeral Gome, as shipper, .rou0ht the remains of petitioners> mother for shipment, !ith 4aria Saludo as consi0nee. 5hereafter, C4,S .oo"ed the shipment !ith P,= throu0h the carrier>s a0ent, ,ir Care International. 45 2ith its aforestated functions, C4,S may accordin0ly .e classified as a for!arder !hich, .y accepted commercial practice, is re0arded as an a0ent of the shipper and not of the carrier. ,s such, it merely contracts for the transportation of 0oods .y carriers, and has no interest in the frei0ht .ut receives compensation from the shipper as his a0ent. 46,t this point, it can .e cate0orically stated that, as culled from the findin0s of .oth the trial court and appellate courts, the entire chain of events !hich culminated in the present controversy !asnot due to the f
Related Documents
![[Transpo-Ampil] Week 3 Cases](https://static.cupdf.com/doc/110x72/55cf8e35550346703b8fae63/transpo-ampil-week-3-cases.jpg)
