LYDIA L. GERALDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND KENSTAR TRAVEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

Our tourism industry is not only big business; it is a revenue
support of the nation’s economy. It has
become a matter of public interest
as to call for its promotion and regulation on a cabinet level. We have special laws and policies for
visiting tourists, but such protective concern has not been equally extended to
Filipino tourists going abroad. Thus,
with the limited judicial relief available within the ambit of present laws,
our tourists often prefer to forget their grievances against local tour
operators who fail to deliver on their undertakings. This case illustrates the recourse of one such tourist who refused to forget.

An action for damages by reason of contractual breach was filed
by petitioner Lydia L. Geraldez against private respondent Kenstar Travel
Corporation, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-4649 of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 80.^[1] After
the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, trial on the merits
ensued.

Culling from the records thereof, we find that sometime in
October, 1989, petitioner came to know about private respondent from numerous
advertisements in newspapers of general circulation regarding tours in
Europe. She then contacted private
respondent by phone and the latter sent its representative, Alberto Vito Cruz,
who gave her the brochure for the tour and later discussed its highlights. The European tours offered were classified
into four, and petitioner chose the classification denominated as “VOLARE
3” covering a 22-day tour of Europe for $2,990.00. She paid the total equivalent amount of
P190,000.00 charged by private respondent for her and her sister, Dolores.

Petitioner claimed that, during the tour, she was very uneasy and
disappointed when it turned out that, contrary to what was stated in the
brochure, there was no European tour manager for their group of tourists, the hotels in which she
and the group were billeted were not first-class, the UGC Leather Factory which
was specifically added as a highlight of the tour was not visited, and the
Filipino lady tour guide provided by private respondent was a first timer, that
is, she was performing her duties and responsibilities as such for the first
time.^[2]

In said action
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, petitioner likewise moved for
the issuance, of a writ of preliminary attachment against private respondent on
the ground that it committed fraud in contracting
an obligation, as contemplated in Section 1(d), Rule 57 of the Rules of
Court, to which no opposition by the latter appears on the record. This was granted by the court a quo^[3] but the preliminary attachment was
subsequently lifted upon the filing by private respondent of a counterbond
amounting to P990,000.00.^[4]

During the pendency of said civil case for damages, petitioner
also filed other complaints before the Department of Tourism in DOT Case No.
90-121 and the Securities and Exchange Commission in PED Case No. 90-3738,^[5]
wherein, according to petitioner, herein private respondent was meted out a
fine of P10,000.00 by the Commission and P5,000.00 by the Department,^[6]
which facts are not disputed by private respondent in its comment on the
present petition.

On July 9, 1991, the court a quo rendered its decision^[7]
ordering private respondent to pay petitioner P500,000.00 as moral damages,
P200,000.00 as nominal damages, P300,000.00 as exemplary damages, P50,000.00 as
and for attorney’s fees, and the costs of the suit.^[8] On
appeal, respondent court^[9] deleted
the award for moral and exemplary damages, and reduced the awards for nominal
damages and attorney’s fees to P30,000.00 and P10,000.00, respectively.^[10]

Hence, the instant petition from which, after sifting through the
blades of contentions alternately thrust and parried the exchanges of the
parties, the pivotal issue that emerges is whether or not private respondent
acted in bad faith or with gross negligence in discharging its obligations
under the contract.

Both the respondent court and the court a quo agree that
private respondent failed to comply faithfully with its commitments under the
Volare 3 tour program, more particularly in not providing the members of the
tour group with a European tour manager whose duty, inter alia, was to
explain the points of interest of and familiarize the tour group with the
places they would visit in Europe, and in assigning instead a first timer
Filipino tour guide, in the person of Rowena Zapanta,^[11]
to perform that role which definitely requires experience and knowledge of such
places. It is likewise undisputed that while the group was able to pay a
visit to the site of the UGC Leather Factory, they were brought there at a very
late hour such that the factory was already closed and they were unable to make
purchases at supposedly discounted prices.^[12] As
to the first-class hotels, however, while the court a quo found that the
hotels were not first-class, respondent court believed otherwise, or that, at
least, there was substantial compliance with such a representation.

While clearly there was therefore a violation of the rights of
petitioner under the aforementioned circumstances, respondent court, contrary
to the findings of the trial court, ruled that no malice or bad faith could be
imputed to private respondent, hence there is no justification for the award of
moral and exemplary damages. Furthermore, it held that while petitioner is entitled to nominal
damages, the amount awarded by the trial court was unconscionable since petitioner
did not suffer actual or substantial damage from the breach of contract,^[13]
hence its reduction of such award as hereinbefore stated.

After a thorough and painstaking scrutiny of the case records of
both the trial and appellate courts, we are satisfactorily convinced, and so
hold, that private respondent did commit fraudulent misrepresentations
amounting to bad faith, to the prejudice of petitioner and the members of the
tour group.

By providing the Volare 3 tourist group, of which petitioner was
a member, with an inexperienced and a first timer tour escort, private
respondent manifested its indifference to the convenience, satisfaction and
peace of mind of its clients during the trip, despite its express commitment to
provide such facilities under the Volare 3 Tour Program which had the grandiose
slogan “Let your heart sing.”^[14]

Evidently, an inexperienced tour escort, who admittedly had not
even theretofore been to Europe,^[15]
cannot effectively acquaint the tourists with the interesting areas in the
cities and places included in the program, or to promptly render necessary
assistance, especially where the latter are complete strangers thereto, like
witnesses Luz Sui Haw and her husband who went to Europe for their honeymoon.^[16]

We agree with petitioner that the selection of Zapanta as the
group’s tour guide was a deliberate and conscious choice on the part of private
respondent in order to afford her an on-the-job training and equip her with the
proper opportunities so as to later qualify her as an “experienced” tour guide and eventually be an asset
of respondent corporation.^[17]
Unfortunately, this resulted in a virtual project experimentation with
petitioner and the members of the tour
group as the unwitting participants.

We are, therefore, one with respondent court in faulting private
respondent’s choice of Zapanta as a qualified tour guide for the Volare 3 tour
package. It brooks no argument that to
be true to its undertakings, private respondent should have selected an
experienced European tour guide, or it could have allowed Zapanta to go merely
as an understudy under the guidance, control and supervision of an experienced
and competent European or Filipino tour guide,^[18] who
could give her the desired training.

Moreover, a tour guide is supposed to attend to the routinary
needs of the tourists, not only when the latter ask for assistance but at the
moment such need becomes apparent. In
other words, the tour guide, especially reason of her experience in previous
tours, must be able to anticipate the possible needs and problems of the
tourists instead of waiting for them to bring it to her attention. While this is stating the obvious, it is her
duty to see to it that basic personal necessities such as soap, towels and
other daily amenities are provided by the hotels. It is also expected of her to see to it that the tourists are
provided with sanitary surroundings and to actively arrange for medical
attention in case of accidents, as what befell petitioner’s sister and wherein
the siblings had to practically fend for themselves since, after merely calling
for an ambulance, Zapanta left with the other tour participants.^[19]

Zapanta fell far short of the performance expected by the tour
group, her testimony in open court being revelatory of her inexperience even on
the basic functions of a tour guide, to wit:

“Q Now, are you aware that there were times that the tourists
under the ‘Volare 3’ were not provided with soap and towels?

A They did not tell me that
but I was able to ask them later on but then nobody is complaining.^[20]
xxx.”

The inability of the group to visit the leather factory is
likewise reflective of the neglect and ineptness of Zapanta in attentively
following the itinerary of the day. This incompetence must necessarily be traced to the lack of due diligence
on the part of private respondent in the selection of its employees. It is true that among the thirty-two
destinations, which included twenty-three cities and special visits to nine
tourist spots, this was the only place
that was not visited.^[21] It
must be noted, however, that the visit to the UGC Leather Factory was one of
the highlights^[22]
of the Volare 3 program which even had to be specifically inserted in the
itinerary, hence it was incumbent upon the organizers of the tour to take
special efforts to ensure the same. Besides, petitioner did expect much from the visit to that factory since
it was represented by private respondent that quality leather goods could be
bought there at lower prices.^[23]

Private respondent represents Zapanta’s act of making daily
overseas calls to Manila as an exercise of prudence and diligence on the
latter’s part as a tour guide.^[24] It
further claims that these calls were needed so that it could monitor the
progress of the tour and respond to any problem immediately.^[25]
We are not persuaded. The truth of the
matter is that Zapanta, as an inexperienced trainee-on-the-job, was required to
make these calls to private respondent for the latter to gauge her ability in
coping with her first assignment and to provide instructions to her.^[26]

Clearly, therefore, private respondent’s choice of Zapanta as the
tour guide is a manifest disregard of its specific assurances to the tour
group, resulting in agitation and anxiety on their part, and which deliberate
omission is contrary to the elementary rules of good faith and fair play. It is extremely doubtful if any group of
Filipino tourists would knowingly agree to be used in effect as guinea pigs in
an employees training program of a travel agency, to be conducted in unfamiliar
European countries with their diverse cultures, lifestyles and languages.

On the matter of the European tour manager, private respondent’s
advertisement in its tour contract declares and represents as follows:

“FILIPINO TOUR ESCORT!

He will accompany you throughout Europe. He speaks your language, shares your culture and feels your
excitement.

He won’t be alone because you will also be accompanied by a . . .

EUROPEAN TOUR MANAGER!

You get the best of both worlds. Having done so many tours in the past with people like you, he knows
your sentiments, too. So knowledgeable
about Europe, there is hardly a question he can’t answer.”^[27]

Private respondent contends that the term “European Tour
Manager” does not refer to an individual but to an organization, allegedly
the Kuoni Travel of Switzerland which supposedly prepared the itinerary for its
“Volare Europe Tour,” negotiated with all the hotels in Europe,
selected tourist spots and historical places to visit, and appointed
experienced local tour guides for the tour group.^[28]

We regret this unseemly quibbling which perforce cannot be
allowed to pass judicial muster.

A cursory reading of said advertisement will readily reveal the
express representation that the contemplated European tour manager is a natural
person, and not a juridical one as private respondent asserts. A corporate entity could not possibly
accompany the members of the tour group to places in Europe; neither can it
answer questions from the tourists during the tour. Of course, it is absurd that if a tourist would want to know how
he could possibly go to the nearest store or supermarket, he would still have
to call Kuoni Travel of Switzerland.

Furthermore, both lower courts observed, and we uphold their
observations, that indeed private respondent had the obligation to provide the
tour group not only with a European tour manager, but also with local European
tour guides. The latter,
parenthetically, were likewise never made available.^[29]
Zapanta claims that she was accompanied by a European local tour guide in most of the major cities in
Europe. We entertain serious doubts on,
and accordingly reject, this pretension for she could not even remember the
name of said European tour guide.^[30] If
such a guide really existed, it is incredible why she could not even identify
the former when she testified a year later, despite the length of their sojourn
and the duration of their association.

As to why the word “he” was used in the aforequoted
advertisement, private respondent maintains that the pronoun “he”
also includes the word “it,” as where it is used as a
“nominative case form in general statements (as in statutes) to include
females, fictitious persons (as corporations).”^[31]
We are constrained to reject this submission as patently strained and
untenable. As already demonstrated, it
is incredible that the word “he” was used by private respondent to denote an artificial or corporate being. From its advertisement, it is beyond cavil
that the import of the word “he” is a natural and not a juridical
person. There is no need for further
interpretation when the wordings are clear. The meaning that will determine the legal effect of a contract is that which is arrived at by
objective standards; one is bound, not by what he subjectively intends, but by
what he leads others reasonably to think he intends.^[32]

In an obvious but hopeless attempt to arrive at a possible
justification, private respondent further contends that it explained the
concept of a European tour manager to its clients at the pre-departure
briefing, which petitioner did not attend.^[33]
Significantly, however, private respondent failed to present even one member of
the tour group to substantiate its claim. It is a basic rule of evidence that a party must prove his own
affirmative allegations.^[34]
Besides, if it was really its intention to provide a juridical European tour
manager, it could not have kept on promising its tourists during the tour that
a European tour manager would come,^[35]
supposedly to join and assist them.

Veering to another line of defense, private respondent seeks sanctuary
in the delimitation of its responsibility as printed on the face of its
brochure on the Volare 3 program, to wit:

“RESPONSIBILITIES: KENSTAR TRAVEL CORPORATION, YOUR TRAVEL AGENT, THEIR EMPLOYEES OR
SUB-AGENTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR BOOKING AND MAKING ARRANGEMENTS AS YOUR AGENTS. Kenstar Travel Corporation, your
Travel Agent, their employees or sub-agents assume no responsibility or
liability arising out of or in connection with the services or lack of services, of any train, vessel, other
conveyance or station whatsoever in the performance of their duty to the
passengers or guests, neither, will they be responsible for any act, error
or omission, or of any damages, injury, loss, accident, delay or irregularity
which may be occasioned by reason (of) or any defect in x x x lodging
place or any facilities x x x.” (Emphases by private respondent.)^[36]

While, generally, the terms of a contract result from the mutual
formulation thereof by the parties thereto, it is of common knowledge that
there are certain contracts almost all the provisions of which have been
drafted by only one party, usually a corporation. Such contracts are called contracts of adhesion, because the only
participation of the party is the affixing of his signature or his “adhesion”
thereto.^[37]
In situations like these, when a party imposes upon another a ready made form
of contract,^[38]
and the other is reduced to the alternative of taking it or leaving it, giving
no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain
on equal footing, a contract of adhesion results. While it is true that an adhesion contract is not necessarily
void, it must nevertheless be construed strictly against the one who drafted
the same.^[39]
This is especially true where the stipulations are printed in fine letters and
are hardly legible, as is the case of the tour contract ^[40]involved
in the present controversy.

Yet, even assuming arguendo that the contractual
limitation aforequoted is enforceable, private respondent still cannot be exculpated for the reason that responsibility
arising from fraudulent acts, as in
the instant case, cannot be stipulated against by reason of public policy. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons,
private respondent cannot rely on its defense of “substantial compliance”
with the contract.

Private respondent submits likewise that the tour was
satisfactory, considering that only petitioner, out of eighteen participants in
the Volare 3 Tour Program, actually complained.^[41] We
cannot accept this argument. Section
28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court declares that the rights of a party cannot
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, a
statutory adaptation of the first branch of the hornbook rule of res inter
alios acta^[42]
which we do not have to belabor here.

Besides, it is a commonly known fact that there are tourists who,
although the tour was far from what the tour operator undertook under the
contract, choose to remain silent and forego recourse to a suit just to avoid
the expenses, hassle and rancor of litigation, and not because the tour was in
accord with what was promised. One does
not relish adding to the bitter memory of a misadventure the unpleasantness of
another extended confrontation. Furthermore, contrary to private respondent’s assertion, not only
petitioner but two other members of the tour group, Luz Sui Haw and Ercilla
Ampil, confirmed petitioner’s complaints when they testified as witnesses for
her as plaintiff in the court below.^[43]

Private respondent likewise committed a grave misrepresentation
when it assured in its Volare 3 tour package that the hotels it had chosen would provide the
tourists complete amenities and were conveniently located along the way for the
daily itineraries.^[44] It
turned out that some of the hotels were not sufficiently equipped with even the
basic facilities and were at a distance from the cities covered by the
projected tour. Petitioner testified on
her disgust with the conditions and locations of the hotels, thus:

“Q   And
that these bathrooms ha(ve) bath tub(s) and hot and cold shower(s)?

A Not all, sir.

Q Did they also provide soap and towels?

A Not all, sir, some (had) no toilet paper.^[45]

Q Which one?

A The 2 stars, the 3 stars and some 4 stars (sic) hotels.

Q What I am saying . . .

A You are asking a question? I am answering you, 2 stars, 3 stars and
some 4 stars (sic) hotels, no soap, toilet paper and (the) bowl stinks. x x x

x x x

Q And that except for the fact that some of these four star hotels were outside
the city they provided you with the comfort?

A Not all, sir.

Q Can you mention some which did not provide you that comfort?

A For example, if Ramada Hotel Venezia is in Quezon City, our hotel is in
Meycauayan. And if Florence or Ferenze is in Manila, our hotel is in Muntinlupa.^[46]

x x x

A One more hotel, sir, in Barcelona, Hotel
Saint Jacques is also outside the city. Suppose Barcelona is in Quezon City, our hotel is in Marilao. We looked
for this hotel inside the city of
Barcelona for three (3) hours. We
wasted our time looking for almost all the hotels and places where to eat. That is the kind of tour that you
have.”^[47]

Luz Sui Haw, who availed of the Volare 3 tour package with her
husband for their honeymoon, shared the sentiments of petitioner and testified
as follows:

“Q     x x x Will you kindly tell us why the
hotels where you stayed are not considered first class hotels?

A Because the hotels where we went, sir, (are) far from the City and the
materials used are not first class and at times there were no towels and
soap. And the two (2) hotels in Nevers
and in Florence the conditions (are) very worse (sic).^[48]

Q Considering that you are honeymooners together with your husband, what
(were) your feelings when you found out that the conditions were not fulfilled
by the defendant?

A I would like to be very honest. I got sick when I reached Florence and half of my body got itch (sic). I think for a honeymooner I would like to
emphasize that we should enjoy that day of our life and it seems my feet kept
on itching because of the condition of the hotel. And I was so dissatisfied because the European Tour Manager was
not around but there (were) beautiful promises. They kept on telling us that a European Tour Manager will come
over; until our Paris tour was ended
there was no European tour manager.^[49]

x x x

Q You will file an action
against the defendant because there was a disruption of your happiness, in your
honeymoon, is that correct?

A That is one of my causes of (sic) coming up here. Secondly, I was very dissatisfied (with) the
condition. Thirdly, that Volare ’89 it says it will let your heart
sing. That is not true. There was no European tour (manager) and the
highlights of the tour (were) very poor. The hotels were worse (sic) hotels.^[50]

Q All the conditions of the
hotels as you …

A Not all but as stated in the brochure that it is first class hotel. The first class hotels state that all things
are beautiful and it is neat and clean with complete amenities and I
encountered the Luxembourg hotel which is quite very dilapidated because of the
flooring when you step on the side ‘kumikiring’ and the cabinets (are) antiques and as honeymooners we don’t want to be
disturbed or seen.^[51]

x x x

Q None of these are first
class hotels?

A   Yes, sir.

Q So, for example Ramada Hotel
Venezia which according to Miss Geraldez is first class hotel is not first
class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q You share the opinion of
Miss Geraldez?

A Yes, sir.

Q The same is true with Grand
Hotel Palatino which is not a first class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q And Hotel Delta Florence is
not first class hotel?

A That is how I got my itch,
sir. Seven (7) days of itch.

Q How about Hotel
Saint-Jacquez, Paris?

A It is far from the
city. It is not first class hotel.

Q So with Hotel Le Prieure Du
Coeur de Jesus neither a first class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q Hotel De Nevers is not a first class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q Hotel Roc Blanc Andorra is not a first class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q Saint Just Hotel, Barcelona is not a first class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q Hotel Pullman Nice neither is not a first class hotel?

A Yes, sir.

Q Hotel Prinz Eugen and Austrotel are not first class hotels?

A Yes, sir.”^[52]

Private respondent cannot escape responsibility by seeking refuge
under the listing of first-class hotels in publications like the “Official
Hotel and Resort Guide” and “Worldwide Hotel Guide.”^[53]
Kuoni Travel, its tour operator,^[54]
which prepared the hotel listings, is a European-based travel agency^[55]
and, as such, could have easily verified the matter of first class
accommodations. Nor can it logically
claim that the first-class hotels in Europe may not necessarily be the
first-class hotels here in the Philippines.^[56] It
is reasonable for petitioner to assume that the promised first-class hotels are
equivalent to what are considered first-class hotels in Manila. Even assuming arguendo that there is
indeed a difference in classifications, it cannot be gainsaid that a
first-class hotel could at the very least provide basic necessities and
sanitary accommodations. We are
accordingly not at all impressed by private respondent’s attempts to trivialize
the complaints thereon by petitioner and her companions.

In a last-ditch effort to justify its choice of the hotels,
private respondent contends that it merely provided such “first
class” hotels which were commensurate to the tourists’ budget, or which
were, under the given circumstances, the “best for their money.” It
postulated that it could not have offered better hostelry when the
consideration paid for hotel accommodations by the tour participants was only
so much,^[57]
and the tour price of $2,990.00 covers a European tour for 22 days inclusive of
lower room rates and meals.^[58]
This is implausible, self-serving and borders on sophistry.

The fact that the tourists were to pay a supposedly lower amount,
such that private respondent allegedly retained hardly enough as reasonable
profit,^[59]
does not justify a substandard form of service in return. It was private respondent, in the first
place, which fixed the charges for the package tour and determined the services
that could be availed of corresponding to such price. Hence, it cannot now he heard to complain that it only made a
putative marginal profit out of the transaction. If it could not provide the tour participants with first-class
lodgings on the basis of the
amount that they paid, it could and should have instead increased the price to
enable it to arrange for the promised first-class accommodations.

On the foregoing considerations, respondent, court erred in
deleting the award for moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages may be awarded in breaches of contract where the
obligor acted fraudulently or in bad faith.^[60] From
the facts earlier narrated,
private respondent can be faulted with fraud in the inducement, which is
employed by a party to a contract in securing the consent of the other.

This fraud or dolo which is present or employed at the
time of birth or perfection of a contract may either be dolo causante or dolo incidente. The first, or causal fraud referred
to in Article 1338, are those deceptions or misrepresentations of a serious
character employed by one party and without which the other party would not
have entered into the contract. Dolo incidente, or incidental fraud which is referred to in Article 1344,
are those which are not serious in character and without which the other party
would still have entered into the contract.^[61] Dolo
causante determines or is the essential cause of the consent, while dolo incidente refers only to some particular or
accident of the obligation.^[62] The effects of dolo causante are the nullity of the contract and the indemnification of damages,^[63]
and dolo incidente also obliges the person employing it
to pay damages.^[64]

In either case, whether private respondent has committed dolo causante or dolo incidente by making
misrepresentations in its contracts with petitioner and other members of the
tour group, which deceptions became patent in the light of after-events when, contrary to its representations, it
employed an inexperienced tour guide, housed the tourist group in substandard
hotels, and reneged on its promise of a European tour manager and the visit to
the leather factory, it is indubitably liable for damages to petitioner.

In the belief that an experienced tour escort and a European tour
manager would accompany them, with the concomitant reassuring and comforting
thought of having security and assistance readily at hand, petitioner was
induced to join the Volare 3 tourists, instead of travelling alone.^[65]
She likewise suffered serious anxiety and distress when the group was unable to
visit the leather factory and when she did not receive first-class
accommodations in their lodgings which were misrepresented as first-class
hotels. These, to our mind, justify the
award for moral damages. However,
considering the nature of moral damages, which are in the category of an award designed to compensate the
claimant for that injury which she had suffered, and not as a penalty on the
wrongdoer,^[66]
we believe that an award of P100,000.00 is sufficient and reasonable.

When moral damages are awarded, especially for fraudulent
conduct, exemplary damages may also be decreed. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for
the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages. According to the Code
Commission, exemplary damages are required by public policy, for wanton acts
must be suppressed.^[67] An
award, therefore, of P50,000.00 is called for to deter travel agencies from
resorting to advertisements and enticements with the intention of realizing
considerable profit at the expense of the public, without ensuring compliance
with their express commitments. While,
under the present state of the law, extraordinary diligence is not required in
travel or tour contracts, such as that in the case at bar, the travel agency
acting as tour operator must nevertheless he held to strict accounting for
contracted services, considering the public interest in tourism, whether in the
local or in the international scene. Consequently, we have to likewise reject the theory of private
respondent that the promises it made in the tour brochure may be regarded only as “commendatory trade
talk.”^[68]

With regard to the honorarium for counsel as an item of damages,
since we are awarding moral and exemplary damages,^[69]
and considering the legal importance of the instant litigation and the efforts
of counsel evident from the records of three levels of the judicial hierarchy,
we favorably consider the amount of
P20,000.00 therefor.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of respondent
Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE, and another one rendered, ordering
private respondent Kenstar Travel Corporation to pay petitioner Lydia L.
Geraldez the sums of P100,000.00 by way of moral damages, P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees, with costs
against private respondent. The award
for nominal damages is hereby deleted.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Nocon, and
Puno, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), no
part.

---

^[1]
Original Record, 1.

^[2]
Ibid., 90.

^[3]
Ibid., 124.

^[4]
Ibid., 152.

^[5]
Exhibits 6-CC-1, 6-DD-1, Folder of Exhibits for Defendant Kenstar Travel
Corporation.

^[6]
Rollo, 27.

^[7]
Original Record, 256; per Judge Benigno T. Dayaw.

^[8]
Ibid., 271.

^[9]
Justice Regina G. Ordoñez-Benitez as ponente, with Justices Gloria C.
Paras and Eduardo G. Montenegro concurring.

^[10]
Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 34961, Decision, 10.

^[11]
Ibid., 5; Original Record, 264.

^[12]
Ibid., 6.

^[13]
Ibid., 8-10.

^[14]
Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8.

^[15]
TSN, December 14, 1990, 27.

^[16]
TSN, November 15, 1990, 15.

^[17]
Petition, 10; Rollo, 20.

^[18]
Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 34961, Decision, 7.

^[19]
TSN, December 14, 1990, 31.

^[20]
Ibid., id., 29.

^[21]
Memorandum for Private
Respondent, 31; Rollo, 132.

^[22]
Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8.

^[23]
Ibid., 25.

^[24]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 20; Rollo, 121.

^[25]
Id., 19; ibid., 120.

^[26]
TSN, December 14, 1990, 31.

^[27]
Supra., Fn. 22.

^[28]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 21-24; Rollo, 122-125.

^[29]
Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 34961, Decision, 5.

^[30]
TSN, December 14, 1990, 28.

^[31]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 25; Rollo, 126.

^[32]
U.S.–Bach vs.. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., C.C.A. Ohio, 155 F. 2d
361, 365.

^[33]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 23; Rollo, 124.

^[34]
Section 1, Rule 131, Rule of Court.

^[35]
TSN, November 15, 1990, 16.

^[36]
Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8-A; Memorandum for Private Respondent, 11; Rollo,
112.

^[37]
BPI Credit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96755, December
4, 1991, 204 SCRA 601.

^[38]
Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 223.

^[39]
Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95536, March
23, 1992, 207 SCRA 498; see also Art. 1377, Civil Code.

^[40]
Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8-A.

^[41]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 18; Rollo, 119.

^[42]
This specific facet of the rule more fully states: Res inter alios
acta aliis neque nole potest.

^[43]
TSN, November 15, 1990, 10-27; 37-52.

^[44]
Original Record, 183, Exhibit A.

^[45]
TSN, October 12, 1990, 20.

^[46]
Ibid., id., 21-22.

^[47]
Ibid., id., 22-23.

^[48]
Ibid., November 15, 1990,
10.

^[49]
Ibid., id., 16-17.

^[50]
Ibid., id., 19-20.

^[51]
Ibid.,, id., 25-26.

^[52]
Ibid., id., 26-27.

^[53]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 27; Rollo, 128.

^[54]
TSN, March 22, 1991, 22.

^[55]
Supra., Fn. 53.

^[56]
See TSN, December 14, 1990, 22.

^[57]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 17; Rollo, 118.

^[58]
Id., 28-31; ibid., 129-132.

^[59]
Ibid., 29; id., 130.

^[60]
Article 2220, Civil Code.

^[61]
Jurado, Comments and Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts, 1987 ed., 438.

^[62]
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1986 ed.,
509.

^[63]
Op. cit., 510.

^[64]
Article 1344, Civil Code.

^[65]
TSN, October 12, 1990, 14.

^[66]
Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
No. 88013, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 360.

^[67]
De Guzman vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No.
90856, July 23, 1992. 211 SCRA 723.

^[68]
Memorandum for Private Respondent, 33; Rollo, 134.

^[69]
Article 2208(1), Civil Code.