Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
G.R.No.127473.December8,2003.
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
197
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 197
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of
Appealsarepremisedontheabsenceofevidenceandarecontradictedbythe
evidenceonrecord.
Same Same Same Same Witnesses Relationship A witness
relationshiptothevictimdoesnotautomaticallyaffecttheveracityofhisor
hertestimony.Awitnessrelationshiptothevictimdoesnotautomatically
affect the veracity of his or her testimony. While this principle is often
appliedincriminalcases,wedeemthatthesameprinciplemayapplyinthis
case, albeit civil in nature. If a witness relationship with a party does not
ipsofactorenderhimabiasedwitnessincriminalcaseswherethequantum
of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, there is no reason
whythesameprincipleshouldnotapplyincivilcaseswherethequantumof
evidenceisonlypreponderanceofevidence.
Same Same Same Damages Actual Damages Compensatory
damages must be duly proved.Article 2199 of the Civil Code, provides
that actual or compensatory damages may only be given for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. We explained in Chan vs.
Maceda, Jr. that: . . . A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or
guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon
competentproofthattheyhavebeensufferedbytheinjuredpartyandonthe
best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point out
specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever
compensatoryoractualdamagesareborne.
SameSameSameSameMoralDamagesToberecoverable,itmust
be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the factual basis for
which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party.It should be
stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the
expenseofthedefendantbutareawardedonlytoallowtheformertoobtain
means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone due to the defendants culpable action. We
emphasized in Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals that moral
damagesarenotpunitiveinnaturebutaredesignedtosomehowalleviatethe
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar
injury unjustly caused to a person. We have held that even though moral
damages are incapable of pecuniary computation, it should nevertheless be
proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. And, to be
recoverable,suchdamagemustbetheproximateresultofawrongfulactor
omission the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the
aggrievedparty.
Same Same Same Same Same Social and financial standing of a
claimantmaybeconsideredinawardingmoraldamages.Thesocialand
198
198 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
GeorginaV.UntalanRabanalforpetitioner.
HenryP.Diestaforrespondents.
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe
1
RulesofCourtseekingthereversalofthedecision
2
datedAugust12,
1996, in CAG.R. CV No. 38327 and the Resolution dated
November 15, 1996 denying the motion for reconsideration of
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.(petitionerforbrevity).
_______________
BuenaandJoseC.DelaRama.
2 Entitled, Judy Amor, et al., PlaintiffsAppellees, vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,
DefendantAppellant.
199
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 199
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
_______________
3DocketedasCivilCaseNo.5390.
4TSN,JudyAmor,October4,1989,pp.6,1011.
5Id.,pp.34,6,2324.
6Id.,pp.46TSN,SalvadorGonzales,September27,1989,pp.68.
7TSN,JudyAmor,October4,1989,pp.56.
8TSN,SalvadorGonzales,September27,1989,pp.610.
200
200 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
6:45a.m.,butthelatterdidnotevenlookathimorutteranyword.
Atty.AmorthentriedtopleadwithDelfinCanonizadoandGeorge
Carranza, employees of petitioner, but still to no avail. Private
respondentswerenotabletoboardsaidflight.Theplaneleftat7:30
9
a.m.,twentyminutesbehindtheoriginalschedule.
Privaterespondentswent to the bus terminals hoping to catch a
rideforManila.Findingnone,theywentbacktotheairportandtried
10
tocatchanafternoonflight. Unfortunately,the2:30p.m.flight,PR
11
278,wascancelledduetoaircraftsituation. Privaterespondents
weretoldtowaitforthe5:30p.m.flight,PR180.Theycheckedin
their bags and were told to hand in their tickets. Later, a PAL
employee at the checkin counter called out the name of private
respondent minor Carlo Benitez. Plaintiff Judy approached the
counter and was told by the PAL personnel that they cannot be
accommodated.Fojaswhowasalsoatthecounterthenremovedthe
boarding passes inserted in12private respondents tickets as well as
thetagsfromtheirluggages.
Manuel Baltazar, a former Acting Manager of petitioner in
LegaspiCityinMay1988,testifiedthatbasedonhisinvestigation,
the private respondents, although confirmed passengers, were not
abletoboardPR178inthemorningofMay8,1988becausethere
were goshow or waitlisted and nonrevenue passengers who
were accommodated in13said flight. He also noted that there was
overbookingforPR178.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that private respondents
arenotentitledtotheirclaimfordamagesbecausetheywerelatein
checkinginforPR178andthattheywereonlychanceorwaitlisted
passengers for PR 180 and were not accommodated because all
confirmed passengers of the flight had checkedin. In support
thereof,petitionerpresentedLloydFojas,whotestified,asfollows:
InthemorningofMay8,1988,hewasondutyatthecheckin
counteroftheLegaspiAirport.Hewastheonewhoattendedtothe
tickets of private respondents which were tendered by Salvador
Gonzalesat7:05a.m.whenthecounterwasalreadyclosed.The
_______________
9TSN,OwenAmor,September28,1989,pp.59.
10TSN,JudyAmor,October4,1989,pp.1213.
11TSN,LloydFojas,November29,1989,p.20.
12TSN,JudyAmor,October4,1980,pp.4950.
13TSN,October25,1980,pp.30,5657.
201
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 201
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
clockatthecheckincountershowedthatitwasalready7:05andso
hetoldGonzalesthattheyarealreadylateandwrotelatecheckin,
7:05 on private respondents tickets. The flight was scheduled to
leaveat7:10a.m.andcheckinginisallowedonlyuntil30minutes
before departure time. At the time private respondents went to the
checkincounter,passengerswerealreadyleavingthepredeparture
areaandgoingtowardstheplaneandtherewerenomorepassengers
inthecheckinarea,notevenwaitlistedpassengers.Thebaggagesof
the passengers have been loaded in the aircraft. Gonzales left and
later came back with Atty. Amor who pleaded that plaintiffs be
accommodated in the flight. He told Atty. Amor to go to his
supervisor to rebook the tickets because there were no more
boardingpassesanditwasalreadytimeforboardingtheplane.Atty.
14
Amorthenleftthecounter.
On crossexamination, Fojas testified that he did not know how
many waitlisted or nonrevenue passengers were accommodated or
issuedboardingpassesinthe7:00a.m.andintheafternoonflightof
15
May8,1988.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment upholding the evidence
presented by private respondents, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:
_______________
14TSN,November29,1989,pp.419.
15TSN,January24,1990,pp.1516.
16Records,p.251.
202
202 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
II
Insupportofthefirstissue,petitionerargues:
(1) While ordinarily, the findings of the CA are accepted as
conclusive by this Court, there are instances when the Court may
make its own findings such as when the appellate court based its
findingsonspeculation,surmisesorconjectures.Theappellatecourt
erroneously gave too much reliance on the testimony of Baltazar
who is a disgruntled former employee and relative of private
respondent Amor. He was not present at the time of the incident.
Baltazar merely interpreted the flight manifest and made a lot of
speculationswhichisundeservingofattentionandmerit.
(2)Itsemployeesareadequatelytrainedandserviceorientedthat
theywouldnotdareviolatecompanyrulesandregulations.Theyare
aware of the drastic consequences that may befall them as what
happenedtoBaltazar.
(3)AstoPR180,privaterespondentsweremerelywaitlistedin
saidflighthenceitwasknowntothemthattheiraccommodationin
said flight was dependent upon the failure of any confirmed
passenger to checkin within the regulation checkin time.
Unfortunately for them, all the confirmed passengers on PR 180
checkedinontime.
_______________
17Rollo,p.23.
203
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 203
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
Insupportofthesecondissue,petitionercontends:
(1)Theawardofactual,moralandexemplarydamagestoprivate
respondents have no factual nor legal basis at all. Its failure to
accommodate private respondents on Flights PR 178, 278 and 180
was not motivated by bad faith or malice but due to a situation
which private respondents brought upon themselves. It had exerted
utmostandsincereefforttolessentheagonyandpredicamentof
privaterespondents.Theyimmediatelymadeprotectivebookingsfor
private respondents on the 2:30 p.m. flight, PR 278, which
unfortunately was cancelled due to aircraft situation. Upon
cancellation of PR 278, they made special arrangements to enable
privaterespondentstohavefirstpriorityinPR180incaseofano
showconfirmedpassenger.
(2)Toawarddamagestoapassengerwhocheckedinlatewould
place a premium or reward for breach of contract that would
encourage passengers to intentionally checkin late with the
expectationofanawardofdamages.
(3)Moralandexemplarydamagesaswellasattorneysfeesare
notrecoverableindamagesuitspredicatedonbreachofcontractof
carriageunlessthereisevidenceoffraud,maliceorbadfaithonthe
partofthecarrier.Evenassumingarguendothatpetitionerisliable
for damages, the amounts awarded in favor of private respondents
areexcessive,unreasonableandunconscionable.Theprimaryobject
of an award of damages in a civil action is compensation or
indemnity or to repair the wrong that has been done. Damages
awarded should be equal to, and commensurate with, the injury
sustained.
(4) It was erroneous to award damages in favor of Jane Gamil
whensheneverappearedbeforethetrialcourttoproveherclaimfor
damages.
In their Comment, private respondents stress that the fact they
were not late in checkingin for PR 178 has been substantially
establishedinthehearingbeforethetrialcourtandaffirmedbythe
CA.Theymaintainthat,contrarytotheassertionofpetitioner,they
haveestablishedtheircasenotonlybyapreponderanceofevidence
butbyproofthatismorethanwhatisrequiredbylawjustifyingthe
factualfindingsofthetrialcourtandtheCA.
Privaterespondentspointoutthatsincetheissuesraisedbythis
petitionarefactualanddonotfallunderexceptionalcircum
204
204 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
stances, there is nothing left to be reviewed or examined by the
SupremeCourt.
Astothedamagesawarded,privaterespondentscontendthatthe
amountsawardedarenotexcessive,unconscionableorunreasonable
becauseofthehighhanded,malicious,dictatorialandsavageactof
petitioners employee which caused them untold mental anguish,
excruciatingpain,publiccontemptandridicule,sleeplessnightsand
otherformsofmoralsuffering.
In its Reply, petitioner reiterates its earlier points and questions
once more the credibility of private respondents witnesses,
particularly Atty. Owen Amor, Salvador Gonzales and Manuel
Baltazarwhoarerelatedtotherespondentsbybloodoraffinity.
In their Rejoinder, private respondents aver that the findings of
factsofthecourtsaquowerebasednotonlyonthetestimoniesof
theirwitnessesbutalsoonpetitionersownemployee,LloydFojas,
who testified that there were nonrevenue, goshow and waitlisted
passengerswhowereaccommodatedinPR178.Theyreiteratetheir
position that where there is a question regarding the credibility of
witnesses,thefindingsoftrialcourtsaregenerallynotdisturbedby
appellate courts. Finally, as to the damages awarded, private
respondentsclaimthattherewassubstantialbasisinawardingsuch
amounts.
Evidently, in resolving the two issues raised in the present
petition,itisinevitableandmostcrucialthatwefirstdeterminethe
question whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC ruling
that private respondents were late in checkingin. Both issues call
forareviewofthefactualfindingsofthelowercourts.
InpetitionsforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesof
Court,thegeneralruleisthatonlyquestionsoflawmayberaisedby
18
thepartiesandpasseduponbythisCourt. Factual findings of the
appellate court are generally binding on us especially 19
when in
completeaccordwiththefindingsofthetrialcourt. Thisisbecause
itisnotourfunctiontoanalyzeorweightheevidenceall
_______________
18Vicentevs.PlantersDevelopmentBank,G.R.No.136112,January28,2003,396
SCRA282Almiravs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.115966,March20,2003,399SCRA
351.
19Lantinvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R. No. 127141, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 202
Sevillavs.Sevilla,G.R.No.150170,April30,2003,402SCRA501.
205
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 205
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
20
overagain. However,thisgeneralruleadmitsofexceptions,towit:
(a) where there is grave abuse of discretion (b) when the finding is
grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures (c) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible (d) when the
judgmentoftheCourtofAppealswasbasedonamisapprehensionoffacts
(e)whenthefactualfindingsareconflicting(f)whentheCourtofAppeals,
inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameare
contrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee(g)whentheCourt
of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion and, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
contrarytothoseofthetrialcourt,oraremereconclusionswithoutcitation
of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not
disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of
Appealsarepremisedontheabsenceofevidenceandarecontradictedbythe
21
evidenceonrecord.
Petitionerinvokesexception(b).
Astothefirstissue:Whetherornotprivaterespondentschecked
inontimeforPR178.Thedeterminationofthisissueisnecessary
because it is expressly stipulated in the airline tickets issued to
private respondents that PAL will consider the reserved seat
cancelled if the passenger fails to 22checkin at least thirty minutes
beforethepublisheddeparturetime.
Afteracarefulreviewoftherecords,wefindnoreasontodisturb
the affirmance by the CA of the findings of the trial court that the
private respondents have checkedin on time that they reached the
airportat6:20a.m.,basedonthetestimoniesofprivaterespondent
JudyAmor,andwitnessesSalvadorGonzalesandAtty.OwenAmor
who were consistent in their declarations on the witness stand and
corroborated one anothers statements and that the testimony of
petitionerslonewitness,LloydFojasisnotsufficienttoovercome
privaterespondentsevidence.
_______________
20Potencianovs.Reynoso,G.R.No.140707,April22,2003,401SCRA391.
21 Twin Towers Condominium Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123552,
February27,2003,398SCRA203.
22ExhibitsAtoD.
206
206 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
The Court is not tasked to calibrate and assess the probative weight of
evidence adduced by the parties during trial all over again...So long as the
findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are consistent with or are not
palpably contrary to the evidence on record, this Court shall decline to 27
embarkonareviewontheprobativeweightoftheevidenceoftheparties:
(Emphasissupplied)
_______________
23Peoplevs.Caloza,Jr.,G.R.Nos.13840486,January28,2003,396SCRA329.
24TSN,November29,1989,pp.1316.
25TSN,October25,1989,pp.5657October4,1989,pp.57andSeptember28,
1989,pp.3233.
26G.R.No.150673,February28,2003,398SCRA508.
27Ibid.
28BayneAdjustersandSurveyors,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,323SCRA231,236
(2000).
207
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 207
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
Ironicallyforthedefendant,asidefromappellantsassumptionthatBaltazar
could be a disgruntled former employee of their company and could be
biased (which same reason could be attributed to Lloyd Fojas) due to a
distant relationship with the plaintiff, it offered no proof or evidence to
rebut, demean and contradict the substance of the testimony of Baltazar on
the crucial point that plaintiffsappellees were bumped off to accommodate
nonrevenue, waitlisted or goshow passengers. On this fact alone,
defendants position weakens while credibly establishing that indeed
plaintiffs arrived at the airport on time to checkin for Flight PR 178.
FurtheremphasismustbemadethatLloydFojasevenaffirmedincourtthat
hecannotrecallhowmanyPR178boardingpasseshehadatthe
_______________
29TSN,October25,1989,pp.33,3536.
30Rocavs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.114917,350SCRA414,421(2001).
208
208 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
ATTY.CALICA:
Q TherewasamemorandumorderofthePALprohibitingover
booking.AreyouawareofCABRegulationNo.7onboarding
passengers?
WITNESS:
A Yes.
ATTY.CALICA:
Q Youwillagreewithmethatthisregulationallowsonlyover
bookingby10%?
WITNESS:
A Yes,thatisagovernmentregulationandthecompanyregulation
isdifferent.
COURT:
Q ButinthemorningflightofMay8,1988,grantingthatthe
governmentregulationallowsonly10%overbooking,canyoutell
theCourtfromthemanifestitselfwhetheritexceededthe10%
overbookingallowedbytheregulationreckoningfromthe109
passengerseater?
WITNESS:
A Withthecapacityof109,10%ofitwillbe10or11,soifweadd
thisitwillnotexceed120passengers.
_______________
31Rollo,p.10.
32TSN,January24,1990,pp.1516.
33TSN,November29,1989,pp.2223.
209
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 209
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
COURT:
Q Inthatflighthowmanywereconfirmed?
WITNESS:
A Inthatflightthosepassengersthatwereconfirmedhaveatotalof
126.
COURT:
Q Evenifwhenallowedthegovernmentregulationofoverbooking,
youwillstillexceedtheallowableoverbookingnumber?
WITNESS:
34
A Yes. (Emphasissupplied)
Q Andhowaboutyou,whatdidyoudowhenyouarrivedatthe
LegaspiAirportat6:20whileSalvadorGonzaleswasatthe
checkincountertopaythetickets?
A IwenttotheOfficeoftheOICManagerattherightsideofthe
LegaspiTerminal.
...
Q WhowasthatManager?
A: IwasabletoknowhisnameasDelfinCanonizado.
Q TherewerealsopeopletherenearthetableofMr.Canonizado,
doyouknowwhatweretheydoing?
A: Theyweremakingcomplaintsalsobecausetheywerealso 35
scheduledforflightonthatday.Theywerenotaccommodated.
(Emphasissupplied)
_______________
34TSN,October25,1989,pp.5657.
35TSN,October4,1989,pp.57.
210
210 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
was only later on when his turn came, that he found out that what
Fojas wrote on the tickets was late checkin 7:05. On cross
examination, Gonzales testified that it was only after the four
persons ahead of him were accommodated that Fojas wrote on the
tickets late checkin 7:05. However, upon clarificatory questions
propounded by the trial court, Gonzales was able to clarify that
Fojas had written the time on the ticket before
36
the four persons
aheadofhimwereentertainedatthecounter. Understandably,the
lower courts found no cogent reason to discredit the testimony of
witnessGonzales.
We have held in an earlier case that a witness may contradict
himselfonthecircumstancesofanactordifferentactsduetoalong
series of questions on crossexamination during which the mind
becomestiredtosuchadegreethatthewitnessdoesnotunderstand
what he is testifying about, especially if the questions, in their
majorityareleadingandtendtomakehimratifyaformercontrary
37
declaration.
Infine,thefindingsoffactofthetrialcourt,assustainedbythe
CA,havetoberespected.Aswehaveconsistentlyheld,trialcourts
enjoy the unique advantage of observing at close range the
demeanor, deportment and conduct of witnesses as they give their
testimonies.Thus,assignmenttodeclarationsonthewitnessstandis
best done by them who, unlike appellate
38
magistrates, can weigh
firsthandthetestimonyofawitness.
Anentthesecondissueastowhetherornotthedamagesawarded
are excessive, we rule in the affirmative. The Court of Appeals
committed an error in sustaining the ruling of the trial court
requiringpetitionertoreimburseprivaterespondentstheamountof
fourplanetickets,includingtheticketforprivaterespondentminor
CarloBenitez.
As admitted by private respondent Judy in her testimony, the
only confirmed tickets for the morning flight (PR 178) are the
tickets for herself, her infant son, Gian Carlo and her sister Jane
Gamil. They had another ticket which Judy bought from a certain
Dra.EmilyChuawhobackedoutandwhosetickettheyhadin
_______________
36TSN,September27,1989,pp.68,2425.
37Peoplevs.Limob,G.R.No.24810,49Phil.94,99100(1926).
38Tugade,Sr.vs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.120874,July31,2003,407SCRA497.
211
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 211
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
39
tended to be transferred to Carlo Benitez. Although
40
it is clearly
statedintheticketthatthesameisnontransferrable, Judytestified
that a PAL employee issued another ticket in the name of Carlo
Benitez in lieu of the ticket issued for Dra. Chua. However, an
examinationoftheticketissued,ExhibitC,disclosesthatitdoes
not state therein the flight number or time of departure.
Consequently, in the absence of competent evidence, private
respondentCarloBenitezcomplaintshouldbedismissed.
We find no justifiable reason that warrants the award of
P100,000.00 as actual damages in favor of all private respondents.
Article2199oftheCivilCode,providesthatactualorcompensatory
damagesmayonlybegivenforsuchpecuniarylosssufferedbyhim 41
ashehasdulyproved.WeexplainedinChanvs.Maceda,Jr. that:
...Acourtcannotrelyonspeculations,conjecturesorguessworkastothe
fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that
they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable
evidenceoftheactualamountthereof.Itmustpointoutspecificfactswhich
couldaffordabasisformeasuringwhatevercompensatoryoractualdamages
42
areborne.
Allthatwasprovedbyhereinprivaterespondentswastheamountof
the purchasepriceof the plane tickets of private respondents Judy,
Jane and Gian Carlo. Only said amounts should therefore be
considered in awarding actual damages. As borne by the records,
privaterespondentJudyAmorpaidP466.00eachforherticketand 43
thatofJanewhileshepaidP46.60forherinfantGianCarlo. The
amount of actual damages should therefore be reduced to P978.60,
payabletoprivaterespondentJudyAmor.
Astomoraldamages.
It should be stressed that moral damages are not intended to
enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant but are awarded
onlytoallowtheformertoobtainmeans,diversionoramusements
thatwillservetoalleviatethemoralsufferinghehasundergone
_______________
39TSN,October4,1989,p.23.
40ExhibitsC,3.
41G.R.No.142591,April30,2003,402SCRA352.
42Ibid.
43ExhibitsA,1B,2D,4.
212
212 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
44
due to the defendants culpable action. We emphasized in
PhilippineNationalBankvs.CourtofAppeals that moral damages
arenotpunitiveinnaturebutaredesignedtosomehowalleviatethe
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliationandsimilarinjuryunjustlycausedtoaperson.Wehave
held that even though moral damages are incapable of pecuniary
computation, it should nevertheless be proportional to and in
approximation of the suffering inflicted. And, to be recoverable,
such damage must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or
omissionthefactualbasisforwhichissatisfactorilyestablishedby
45
theaggrievedparty.
Inthecaseatbar,privaterespondentJudyAmortestifiedthatshe
felt ashamed when the plane took off and they were left at the
airportsincethereweremanypeopletherewhosawthemincluding
dentists like her. She also related that she missed the Philippine
Dental Convention scheduled on the 8th of May, 1988 where she
was supposed to attend as a dentist and officer of the Sorsogon
Dental Association. They tried to look for buses bound for Manila
but missed those scheduled in the morning. They went back to the
airport but still failed to take an afternoon flight. Hence, she was
forcedtotakeabusthateveningforManilawhichdidnotallowher
46
to sleep that night. PrivaterespondentJudyhoweverdidnotmiss
the whole convention as she was able to leave on the night of the
firstdayoftheweeklongconvention.
Whilethereisnohardandfastrulefordeterminingwhatwould
beafairamountofmoraldamages,generally,theamountawarded 47
shouldbecommensuratewiththeactuallossorinjurysuffered.
The CA erred in upholding the trial courts award of moral
damagesbasedonJudyAmorsclaimthattherewasadenigrationof
her social and financial standing. Private respondent Judy failed to
showthatshewastreatedrudelyordisrespectfullybypetitioners
_______________
44PhilippineAirlinesvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.120262,275SCRA621,630
(1997).
45G.R.No.126908,January16,2003,395SCRA272.
46TSN,October4,1980,pp.1012,1617.
47DelRosariovs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.118325,267SCRA158,173(1997).
213
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 213
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
employeesdespiteherstatureasadentist.AsweheldinKierulfvs.
48
CourtofAppeals:
ThesocialandfinancialstandingofLucilacannotbeconsideredinawarding
moraldamages.Thefactualcircumstancespriortotheaccidentshowthatno
rude and rough reception, no menacing attitude, no supercilious
manner,noabusivelanguageandhighlyscornfulreferencewasgivenher.
The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be
considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to
contemptuous conduct despite the offenders knowledge of his or her social
49
andfinancialstanding. (Emphasissupplied)
Nevertheless,weholdthatprivaterespondentJudyAmorisentitled
to moral damages. In a number of cases, we have pronounced that
aircarriageisabusinesspossessedwithspecialqualities.InSingson
50
vs.CourtofAppeals, weexplainedthat:
_______________
48G.R.No.99301,269SCRA433(1997).
49Id.,atp.446.
50G.R.No.119995,282SCRA149(1997).
51Id.,atp.153.SeealsoPhilippineAirlinesvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.120262,
275SCRA621,626(1997).
52Zalameavs.CourtofAppeals,228SCRA23,31(1993).
214
214 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
_______________
53 Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 83768, 182
SCRA899,907(1990).
54TSN,October4,1989,pp.1011.
55PanAmericanWorldAirwaysvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.RNo.68988,
June21,1990,186SCRA687,690(1990).
56DelRosariovs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.118325,267SCRA158,173(1997).
57SeeNote52.
215
VOL.417,DECEMBER8,2003 215
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals
exemplary
58
damages in addition to moral and actual damages is
proper. However,asinthematterofthemoraldamagesawardedby
thetrialcourt,weconsidertheamountofP200,000.00asexemplary
damages to be far too excessive. The amount of P25,000.00 is just
andproper.
We find the award of attorneys fees in this case to be in order
since it is well settled that the same may be awarded when the
defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to59litigate
withthirdpersonsortoincurexpensestoprotecthisinterest.
WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals
withthefollowingMODIFICATIONS:
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Puno(Chairman),Quisumbing,Callejo,Sr.andTinga, JJ.,
concur.
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodifications.
o0o
_______________
58Singsonvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.119995,282SCRA149,163(1997).
59Id.,p.165.
216
216 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Donatovs.CourtofAppeals
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.