JAPAN AIRLINES V SIMANGAN must be attended by basic courtesies.
Moverover, the attempt to rebook
(Reyes|2008)
TOPIC: Court’s Discretion
Jesus Simangan decided to donate his compatible kidney to his
cousin Loreto in UCLA Los Angeles, California. He needed to go to US to
complete his preliminary work up and donation surgery, UCLA wrote a letter
to the American Consulate in Manila to arrange for his emergency visa.
Simangan bought a roundtrip plane ticket from JAL to US for $1485 and was
issued a boarding pass (PH-Narita-LA).
The date of his flight, he checked in and his ticket, pass and luggage
were subjected to rigid immigration routines. He was allowed in. Inside the
plane, however, JAL’s airline crew suspected him of carrying a falsified travel
document and imputed he would only use the trip to the US as a pretext to
stay and work in Japan. The flight attendant, a Filipino and a Japanese
haughtily ordered him to stand up and leave the plan, he pleaded with JAL to
closely monitor his movements when the aircraft stops over Narita but
ignored and forced off the plane.
Simangan waited in JAL’s ground office for 3 hours and the plane
took off. He was then informed his travel documents were in order and was
refunded the cost of his plane ticket less $500 and his US visa was
cancelled. He was offered to rebook for the next day. Action for damages vs.
JAL in RTC Valenzuela because he was not able to donate his kidney, he
suffered terrible embarrassment and mental anguish. He prayed for P3M as
moral damages (MD), P1.5 as exemplary damages (ED) and P500k as atty’s
fees (AF).
JAL: his travel documents had to be authenticated by the US Embassy
because no one from JAL’s airport staff had encountered a parole visa
before and the authentication needed additional time and alleged he agreed
to be rebooked the following day. Counterclaim for litigation expenses,
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
RTC: JAL pay P1M MD, P500K ED, P250k AF, +cost of suit, Said therE was
a contract of carriage violation since he was already settled in his seat when
he was ordered out of the plane, he suffered embarrassment and
besmirched reputation. The defendant is engaged in transporting passengers
by plane from country to country and should therefore know travel
documents.
CA: affirm w/ modifications. While the protection of passengers must take
precedence over convenience, the implementation of security measures
Simangan was too late, the damage had been done.
Fundamental in the law on damages is that one injured by a breach of a
contract, or by a wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fair and
just compensation commensurate to the loss sustained. Being discretionary
on the court, the amount, however, should not be palpably and scandalously
excessive:
 1M too much, no proof of his social standing, profession, financial
capabilities provided to prove moral damages. MD is not to enrich
complainant at the expense of the defendant, awarded only to
enable them to obtain means to alleviate the damage -> 500k
 500k ED too much, The award of exemplary damages is designed to
permit the courts to mold behavior that has socially deleterious
consequences and its imposition is required by public policy to
suppress the wanton acts of the offender-> 250k.
 250k AF lack factual basis, no evidence as to the expenses of
counsel.
ISSUES:
1. W/N JAL committed breach of contract of carriage
2. W/N CA erred in awarding moral and exemplary damages because (1) not
guilt of breach of conract, (2) if ever it was, md only awarded when breach is
attended by fraud or bad faith
2. W/N JAL entitled to counterclaim for damages
HELD:
1. YES. There was a contract of carriage since he was issued a boarding
pass after thorough security procedure ut he was not allowed to fly. Damage
had already been done even if he was offered to rebook for the next day.
He could not have freely consented to be rebooked the next day since he
was forced out of the plane and left behind against his will. He did not agree
to the alleged novation which must be express. In addition, Art. 1755 NCC
says a “common carried is bound to carry passengers…using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances”
thus JAL should have known the valid documents.
In an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is required of
the plaintiff is to prove the existence of the contract and its non-performance,
satisfied.
2. YES. Gen. rule, MD not recoverable for breach of contract (not in Art.
2219 enumeration) but they are recoverable when: (1) cases where
mishap results in death (Art. 1764), (2) cases in which carrier is guilty of
fraud or bad faith (Art. 2220).

Acts by JAL are bad faith. Summary and insolent bumping off the
plane after being settled in. Inattention to the interest of its passengers who
are entitled to the utmost care is bad faith. The law recognizes bad faith in
securing the contract, execution, enforcement of terms and any other kind of
deceit.
YES to ED because the acts are wanton, oppressive and malevolent
against respondent. Exemplary damages may be recovered in
contractual obligations if they acted in a wanton manner as an example
to correct future behavior of the public and the wrongdoer. Exemplary
damages’ purpose is to reshape behavior that harm society, such as not
complying with the highest possible diligence, extraordinary diligence, from
common carriers by creating negative incentives. Neglect of the carrier’s
passengers by its employees are grounds for damages, passengers have a
right to be treated with kindness, respect and due consideration.
YES, he is entitled to AF. They are awarded when defendant’s
act/omission compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or
incur expenses to protect his interest. The basis is any of the cases under
Art. 2208 and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they
have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation or as part thereof.
 Amount of attorney’s fees is discretionary so long as it passes the
test of reasonableness. They may be recovered as
actual/compensatory when exemplary damages are awarded and
whenever the court deems it just and equitable.
executory.
3. NO, JAL is not entitled to counterclaim. During the trial, it was presented
by a witness that JAL suffered damages since respondent published its
complaints in the newspaper.
But JAL is a common carrier and it invites people to avail themselves
of the comforts and advantages. Since JAL deals with the public, bumping off
a passenger naturally draws public attention. Moreover, the are matters in
which the public has a right to be informed since they relate to a public issue.
If respondent indeed caused the publication, not liable for damages since his
freedom of speech and of press includes fair commentaries on matters of
public interest. There must be actual malice and known to be false for
libelous statements to deserve action.
It is case law that if damages result from a party's exercise of a
right, it is damnum absque injuria. Lawful acts give rise to no injury.
Walang perhuwisyong maaring idulot ang paggamit sa sariling
karapatan.
DISPO: Denied. CA awards affirmed w/ modification (500k MD, 100k ED,
200k AF), 6%/annum from Sept. 21, 2000 to 12% on unpaid amount/annum
when this Decision becomes final (April 22, 2008).
RSAT

Pay total of P800k w/ legal interest (6%). When the obligation is

breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, (ex. a loan), the
interest due should be that which is stipulated. Furthermore, the interest
due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In
the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum
to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. If an
obligation is not a loan of money, interest may be awarded at the
discretion of the court at 6%. If demand is established with reasonable
certainty, interest shall run from time claim is made J/EJ. But when not
certain, it will begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court
is made (quantification of damages reasonably ascertained), and when the
judgment awarding the sum becomes final and executory, the legal
interest w/n it involves money is 12%/annum from such finality until its
satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to
a forbearance of credit. In this case, 6% starts Sept 21, 2000 when RTC
rendered its judgment and it becomes 12% after this Decision is final and