SPOUSES PATRIA ADORADA AND NOLITO J. PALER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. CEBU AIR, INC. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
INGLES, G. T., J.:
Before this Court is an appeal[1] filed by defendant-appellant Cebu Air, Inc., (CAI) from the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-32357 for Breach of Contract of Carriage with Damages and Attorney’s Fees. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds defendant Cebu Air, Inc. liable for Breach of Contract of Carriage and is hereby directed to pay plaintiffs the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages, One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) plus 12% per annum legal interest by way of actual and compensatory damages, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos as attorney’s fees and costs of suit and finally, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[3]
THE PARTIES
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Patria Adorada Paler, is of legal age and is joined by her husband Nolito Paler in the present case. Both are residents of No. 7 Maquise Road, Nichols Park Subdivision, Guadalupe, Cebu City where they may be served with summons and other legal processes.
Defendant-Appellant Cebu Air, Inc. (CAI) is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine Laws with principal address at Airlines Operation Center, Domestic Road, Pasay City, where it may be served with summons and other legal processes.[4] CAI is a corporation engaged in the operation of air transport services, both domestic and international for passengers, mail and cargo. It is the owner and operator of Cebu Pacific.[5]
THE ANTECEDENTS
Plaintiff-Appellee Patria Adorada Paler is a naturalized American Citizen who is working as a nurse in Laredo Medical Center at Laredo, Texas, U.S.A.[6]
As early as February 7, 2006, Patria already made arrangements for her trip to the Philippines in order to attend the graduation rites of her daughter from the University of San Carlos in Cebu City. In preparation for the event, she filed a leave of absence from work. Patria also booked a flight and was issued her travel schedules[7] by China Airlines-GTT; the agent of CAI in the U.S.A. She was scheduled to arrive from Manila to Cebu on March 18, 2006 and return from Cebu to Manila on April 21, 2006.[8]
However, due to a conflict in her work schedule[9], Patria arrived in Manila on March 21, 2006 at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening. She then took the 5:00 am flight the following day from Manila to Cebu via Cebu Pacific[10] and arrived on March 22, 2006. Patria’s flight to Cebu was uneventful. For deviations from her original schedule, she was merely subjected to a rebooking fee[11] of one hundred twelve pesos (P112.00) by Cebu Pacific.
However, the same could not be said for her return flight from Cebu to Manila. The events that unfolded have become contentious that this Court shall chronicle both parties’ version separately.
Plaintiffs-Appellees aver that on April 21, 2006, Patria was scheduled to leave from Cebu to Manila at 9:00 pm[12] via Cebu Pacific[13] carrier 5J, flight 574.[14] She arrived at the airport past 7:00 pm to make it before the forty-five (45) minute cut-off time imposed by the airline at 8:25 pm. Upon arriving, she saw other passengers falling in line at the Cebu Pacific counter. She joined the group and queued as well.[15]
When it was her turn at the counter, Patria surrendered her passport and ticket. The staff then took her baggages and weighed it. Her ticket was also stamped “USED”. [16] Her boarding pass was attached to her ticket but was not handed to her.[17] Instead, she was told to wait beside the line for further information. When she asked about the matter, the man in the ticket counter told her they were still awaiting two (2) more passengers who were also boarding the same flight.[18]
At around 8:30 pm, Patria began to wonder why she still was not checked in when her flight was supposed to leave at 9:00 pm. She then asked to talk to the manager. She was brought to the office of the Cebu Pacific. Outside the room was a waiting area. She was told to sit down as someone was coming to talk to her. A man named Apomar[19] “Popoy” Nelllas came out of the office and again told her she has to “wait and no other way, just wait.”[20]
While waiting, she heard an announcement from Cebu Pacific that the 9:00pm flight was already boarding.[21] Another announcement came this time from Philippine Airlines (PAL) offering a reward for passengers who will choose to give up their seats in favor of those who needed to take an emergency flight at that time.[22]
Patria asked Nellas for help if she may be accommodated to take the Philippine Airlines flight. Nellas acquiesced and again told her to wait. After thirty (30) minutes, Nellas came back saying that Philippine Airlines could not also accommodate her since they were also overbooked. By then it was already past 9:00 pm and Patria was crying and begging for their help.[23]
At about 10:00 pm, Patria was called by the staff and was told she can be accommodated for the 11:00 pm flight. Patria requested Nellas if he could call Korean Airlines to ask them to wait for her as she was going to board the 11:00 pm flight. Nellas however replied that they could not do that. Realizing that she could not make it in time for her 12:10 am connecting flight to the United States, Patria decided not to go at all.[24]
Thereafter, Patria requested the staff to call Korean Airlines so she could rebook her flight. The outcome however was fruitless as she was told that the next available flight was in the middle of May. Patria explained that she could not wait until then as it was already too late considering that she was due to report back for her work at the hospital[25] by April 24, 2006.[26]
The staff returned her ticket, crushed out the stamped word “USED” and wrote the word “UNUSED” followed by some initials.[27] Patria is baffled since she has confirmed her flight and yet the two passengers who were not yet in line before her were accommodated. In contrast, she, despite her confirmed ticket was not allowed to board her flight.[28]
As a result of her missed flight, Patria had to purchase a new ticket to the United States costing her nine hundred dollars ($900). She also had to extend her stay in the Philippines for seven (7) more days. During the said time, she was not able to report to work. At that time, Patria was working twelve (12) hours a day, six (6) days a week. She was paid forty ($40) dolllars per hour for the first forty (40) hours as regular pay. For the succeeding thirty-two (32) hours, she is paid an equivalent of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of her regular pay.[29]
Upon reporting to work, Patria was reprimanded by her superior. She was threatened of disallowing her scheduled vacation the following year. Instead, priority was given to other nurses whose vacations were delayed due to Patria.[30]
Defendant-Appellant CAI for their part presented Apomar Nellas to testify on the incident. In his Judicial Affidavit[31], Nellas stated that he is the Area Manager-Visayas of Cebu Air Inc.[32] He alleged:
On April 21, 2006, Nellas was on duty at the Mactan Cebu International Airport. Patria was one of the passengers of flight 5J 572 scheduled to depart for Manila at 9:00 pm. On the said day, most of their turnaround flights from Manila was delayed due to the ongoing repair and closure of runway 13/31. As a result, their flights from Cebu to Manila including the flight of Patria was also delayed.
When Patria was about to check in, she was temporarily put on hold since the earlier flight 5J 570 was still boarding. By then, the staff was still waiting for the two (2) passengers missing at the gate. If the two (2) passengers would not show up, they could offer to accommodate her on 5J 570. Patria was then informed of the delays in all of their flights. Consequently, her flight would also be delayed.
Upon hearing that her flight would be delayed, Patria requested if she can still be accommodated on the earlier flight 5J 570 since she has an international connecting flight. The staff responded that they can accommodate her if the two (2) passengers who have not yet boarded the plane would not turn up. However, the missing passengers eventually arrived and boarded flight 5J 570.
After flight 5J 570 departed, the staff checked in Patria on her scheduled flight 5J 572. Flight 5J 572 was originally scheduled to leave at 9:00 pm. The delay however resulted into a change in the Estimated Time of Departure (ETD) to 10:00 pm.
Patria again insisted that she needed to be in Manila earlier than 10:00pm because of her international flight. The staff then tried to transfer her to a Philippine Airlines flight but the flight was also booked. As a resort, Cebu Pacific informed Patria that she is still checked in on flight 5J 572 and that she can still board the said flight.[33]
However, Cebu Pacific received another information that the flight will be further delayed and will have a new ETD at 10:45 pm. Patria was duly informed of the said development. It was then that Patria decided to voluntarily back out of her confirmed flight as she would miss her connecting flight to the U.S.A. The staff again informed her that she can still be accommodated on her original flight but she insisted on canceling her booking. Thereafter, Patria’s ticket was then marked from “USED” to “UNUSED”.[34]
During Patria’s testimony, she insisted that she was never informed of any delay. Rather, nobody explained to her what was going on.[35] She never requested to go ahead of her scheduled flight.[36] She further clarified that she was not given an option to fly with PAL. It was she who suggested that perhaps she can take the PAL flight instead.[37] Patria also insisted that she heard an announcement that her flight number (5J 574) was boarding and that the same corresponded to her boarding time.[38]
On the other hand, Apomar insisted that Patria’s flight was booked on flight 5J 572. On Cross Examination Apomar explained:
A Tickets are issued on the option of the passenger on which schedule she wants to have. However, it does not prevent passengers from changing their bookings or rebookings.
Q So you are now saying that flight 5J572 was the earlier flight not the scheduled flight of Ms. Paler?
A No. 5J we have flight 574, we have 572, we have flight 570 and Ms. Paler was booked on 5J572 on the updated record because the ticket was issued by a third party office somewhere in China Airlines. That was issued prior to the actual scheduled day of departure.
Xxx
Q And you will also confirmed (sic) that the scheduled departure is 9:00pm.
A That’s for 5J572, delayed.[39]
1. Whether or not plaintiff Patria was bumped off by the defendant;
2. Whether or not defendant may be held liable for violating the Contract of Carriage;
3. Whether or not the parties are entitled to their respective claims for damages.[40]
As to the first issue, the Lower Court found Patria to have been bumped off flight 5J 574. It held that as between Patria’s account of events and CAI’s bare claims that the delays were caused by the closure of runway 13/31, Patria’s claims should prevail. The RTC took note that CAI could not present any proof of their claim that the delay in the flights on the said day was indeed due to the alleged runway closure.
It further held that the passenger list[41] submitted by CAI failed to prove that Patria backed out from her original flight schedule. Further, the discrepancy in the flight schedules was not sufficiently explained by Nellas during his testimony in Court. Ultimately, the Lower Court declared, “by whatever flight number, the fact is, plaintiff was, not out of her own volition, unable to board in one and that she incurred damages as a consequence of (sic) thereof.”[42] Thus, it held defendant-appellant to have breached its Contract of Carriage with Patria.
In justifying the award for damages, the RTC ruled that the Cebu Pacific Personnel acted in evident bad faith in its treatment of Patria. She was left without any explanation as to the details of her flight despite her status as a confirmed passenger. It found Cebu Pacific to be without regard for Patria and lacked empathy for her plight.[43]
Aggrieved, defendant-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration[44]. In resolving the same, on July 23, 2012, the RTC issued an Order[45] denying the Motion. The Lower Court affirmed its earlier decision by ruling:
As previously pointed out, it is not material what flight number the plaintiff wife was supposedly booked and checked in, what is important in order to establish liability on the part of the defendant is whether plaintiff Adorada Paler was able to board the which she was supposed to board without any fault on the part of the defendant.[46]
Hence, the instant appeal.
ISSUES
We now resolve the following issues:
I. Whether or not defendant-appellant is liable for breach of contract of carriage;
II. Whether or not plaintiff-appellant Patria is entitled to damages.
THE COURT’S RULING
In an action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent.All that is necessary to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.[47] The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one.Imbued with public interest, the law requires common carriers to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances.[48]
When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises.The passenger then has every right to expect that he be transported on that flight and on that date.If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract of carriage.[49]
We now apply the following principles in the case at bar. The evidence on record disclose that Patria was issued an Airline ticket by an agent of CAI for flight 5J 574 from Cebu bound for Manila. The estimated time for departure is at 9:00 pm with an estimated time of arrival at 10:00 pm. The flight status has been confirmed seventy-two (72) hours prior to her schedule by Cebu Pacific and was even issued locator number NNQBH for the said flight.[50]
As opposed to CAI’s insistence that Patria was scheduled to fly via 5J572, the evidence submitted to support the same is self-serving and dubitable. The passenger list submitted by defendant-appellant supposed to show that Patria was confirmed as a passenger in the said flight fail to prove the same. The list of passengers for flight 5J572 do not include the name of plaintiff-appellee Patria. Instead, a handwritten annotation was placed identifying Patria as passenger number 79 who voluntarily backed out of her flight. Save for defendant-appellant’s assertion that Patria was due to fly via 5J572, no evidence has sufficiently proven the same.
The following facts on the other hand are undisputed: One, Patria was scheduled to fly on April 21, 2006 at 9:00 pm via Cebu Pacific. Two, the flight scheduled to leave at 9:00 pm was delayed and did not take off until 11:34 pm.
When a passenger contracts for a specific flight, he has a purpose in making that choice which must be respected.This choice, once exercised, must not be impaired by a breach on the part of the airline without the latter incurring any liability.[51]
It has been established that Patria was scheduled to arrive in Manila at 10:00 pm in order to catch her 12:10 midnight flight on April 22, 2006 to the United States. If the flight from Cebu for Manila leaves at 11:34 pm, it is for certain that Patria could not well make it for her connecting flight by 12:10 am. From the foregoing, the fact that Patria decided not to board her delayed flight could hardly be described as voluntary as defendant-appellant would have Us believe.
Under the circumstances, it is evident that defendant-appellant has opened itself vulnerable to a breach of contract of carriage when it failed to transport plaintiff-appellee on time. The fact of delay has been established and duly admitted by defendant-appellant. However, in its defense, it blamed the delay of their flights to a runway closure in Manila. Hence, the circumstances are beyond their control.
In addition, it insists that its contract in no way guarantees the exact time for its transport. Defendant-Appellant puts up defense from liability by way of Article No. 9 of the Conditions of Contract whereby it guarantees transport “with reasonable dispatch”. The said Article further denies any responsibility for making connections.[52]
Inasmuch as defendant-appellant largely places the blame on the closure of runway 13/31 on the day of the incident, We find it curious that defendant-appellant never bothered to show proof of such closure. Instead, it remained staunch with a convenient excuse without showing an iota of proof to back its claim.
In the case at bar, Cebu Pacific’s flight was two (2) hours and thirty-four (34) minutes delayed from its estimated time of departure. Considering that the flight was allegedly due to a runway closure that defendant-appellant could not account for, We find defendant-appellant’s undertaking of transportation on the scheduled time to be hardly reasonable.
In the case of Northwest Airlines, Inc.vs. Steven P. Chiong, the Supreme Court reiterated:
Time and again, we have declared that a contract of carriage, in this case, air transport, is primarily intended to serve the traveling public and thus, imbued with public interest. The law governing common carriers consequently imposes an exacting standard of conduct. As the aggrieved party, Chiong only had to prove the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by Northwest, as carrier, in order to be awarded compensatory and actual damages.
Defendant-Appellant likewise questioned the award of actual and compensatory damages awarded to plaintiffs-appellants considering the same were not duly supported by competent proof.[53] It also questions the award of moral damages for its lack of basis and exorbitance. It further asserts that moral damages may not be recovered in actions ex contractu. The same may only be awarded when there is presence of bad faith or guilt on the part of the carrier. It insists that it did not act in bad faith in the present case.[54] The same argument is adopted by defendant-appellant for the reconsideration of the award for exemplary damages. CAI maintains that it did not in any way act in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.[55]
We find defendant-appellant’s argument with regard to the award of actual and compensatory damages to be meritorious. Although this Court recognizes the fact that plaintiff-appellee certainly expended for a new booking for her flights and has experienced loss of income as a result of her missed flight, plaintiff-appellee was not able to adduce sufficient proof of the amount of actual damages she has suffered. Save for Patria’s testimony in court pertaining to her actual and compensatory damages, she was not able to produce any receipts or payslips to support her claims. In view thereof, the award for actual and compensatory damages must be deleted.
Nevertheless, Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides that, when pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered.[56] Notwithstanding the wording of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court has settled in jurisprudence that even if the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant is capable of proof, an award of temperate damages is not precluded. The grant of temperate damages is drawn from equity to provide relief to those definitely injured. Therefore, it may be allowed so long as the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss.[57]
In the case at bar, We find the award of temperate damages to be proper. This Court acknowledges that plaintiff-appellee surely spent for her return flights from Cebu to Manila and Manila to the United States. We likewise recognize that plaintiff-appellee missed the date when she was due to report back to work as a consequence of missing her flight. The fact of missed days of work would consequently result in loss of income on her part.
We find defendant-appellant’s contention regarding the award of the other damages to be without merit. We give regard that plaintiff-appellee was subjected to an unnecessary unpleasant experience despite her confirmed ticket and schedule. Plaintiff-Appellee’s ticket, documentation and baggages were accepted in a customary manner. However, the staff of Cebu Pacific withheld her boarding pass and made her wait while keeping her in the dark of her flight status. We find defendant-appellant’s candidness in dealing with the situation specious. Contrary to its claim, the staff of Cebu Pacific did not volunteer any information as to her flight status. Rather, she had to demand to see the Manager in order to know that her flight was delayed. This roundabout passing of her queries and orders to wait has amounted to stalling. It was almost the 9:00 pm, the estimated time of departure, when Patria was informed that her flight was delayed. Defendant-Appellant failed to directly and efficiently address her concerns. It took begging and crying on Patria’s part for Mr. Nellas to take action on her pleas.
CAI’s insensitivity on Patria’s predicament is also manifested in defendant-appellant’s argument that plaintiff-appellee could not have suffered sleepless nights worrying about her employment. It reasoned, with the advent of hightech communications, Patria could have easily communicated with her employer about her predicament and not worry about her job. We find this argument to be unsympathetic and remorseless. Defendant-Appellant failed to realize that Patria was due to report back to work on April 24, 2006 as stated in her contract. Thus, failing to report on the said day would constitute a breach thereof. Aside from the consequent breach, We likewise must take note of the nature of Patria’s profession. As a nurse, Patria must necessarily be physically present to do her job. As Patria is working in a hospital, Her work schedule is governed by rotation of the staff. Contrary to CAI’s discussion, the advent of high technology could not well relieve the disruption that may be caused to the hospital operations due to a nurse’s absence.
Indeed, from the events that transpired, We find plaintiff-appellee Patria to have experienced, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, serious anxiety, fear and distress caused by defendant-appellant.
WHEREFORE,the appeal is hereby DENIED.The Decisionof the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. CEB-32357 datedSeptember 14, 2011 is herebyAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONin that the award of actual and compensatory damages is DELETED. In lieu thereof, defendant-appellant is directed to PAY plaintiffs-appellees One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as temperate damages.
The dispositive portion should read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds defendant Cebu Air, Inc. liable for Breach of Contract of Carriage and is hereby directed to PAY plaintiffs the sum of:
- Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages;
- One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) b way of temperate damages;
- The amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages; and
- Finally, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as attorney’s fees and cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, page 16.
[2] Ibid., page 33.
[3] Id., page 39.
[4] Id., page 19.
[5] Original Records, page 264.
[6] Original Records, pages 2-3.
[7] Original Records, page 10.
[8] Original Records, page 3.
[9] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 10.
[10] Original Records, page 9.
[11] Original Records, page 11.
[12] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 12.
[13] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 14.
[14] Original Records, page 12.
[15] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 32.
[16] Id.
[17] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 13.
[18] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 33.
[19] Id., page 21.
[20] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 34.
[21] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 14.
[22] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 15.
[23] Id.
[24] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 16.
[25] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 17.
[26] Id. page 3.
[27] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 17.
[28] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 23.
[29] T.S.N., May 21, 2009, page 24.
[30] T.S.N., page 27, May 21, 2009.
[31] Original Records, page 264.
[32] Id.
[33] Original Records, page 265.
[34] Original Records, page 266.
[35] T.S.N., page 13, May 21, 2009.
[36] T.S.N., page 35, May 21, 2009.
[37] T.S.N., page 36, May 21, 2009.
[38] T.S.N., page 48, May 21, 2009.
[39] T.S.N., pages 23-24, March 25, 2010.
[40] Id., page 35.
[41] Original Records, pages 268-269.
[42] Id., page 37.
[43] Id., page 38.
[44] Id., page 322.
[45] Original Records, page 336.
[46] Original Records, page 337.
[47] China Airlines Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 129988], July 14, 2003.
[48] PAL vs. CA, 226 SCRA 423 (1993).
[49] Alitalia Airways vs. CA, 187 SCRA 763 (1990).
[50] T.S.N., page 26, March 25, 2010.
[51] Alitalia Airways vs. CA, 187 SCRA 763 (1990).
[52] Id., page 27.
[53] Id., page 28.
[54] Id., page 29.
[55] Id., page 30.
[56] Jaime P. Adriano and Legaspi Towers 300, Inc. v. Alberto Lasala And Lourdes Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 09, 2013.
[57] Reno R. Gonzales, vs. Camarines Sur Ii Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 181096, March 6, 2013.