SECOND DIVISION.
.
SINGAPORE
AIRLINES
LIMITED,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
142305
December 10, 2003
-versus-
ANDION FERNANDEZ,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164 in Civil Case No.
60985 filed by the respondent for damages. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the
Respondent
Respondent Andion Fernandez
is an acclaimed soprano here in the Philippines and abroad. At the time
of the incident, she was availing an educational grant from the Federal
Republic of Germany, pursuing a Master's Degree in Music majoring in
Voice.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
She was invited to
sing before the King and Queen of Malaysia on February 3 and 4, 1991.
For
this singing engagement, an airline passage ticket was purchased from
petitioner
Singapore Airlines which would transport her to Manila from Frankfurt,
Germany on January 28, 1991. From Manila, she would proceed to Malaysia
on the next day.[4]
It was necessary for the respondent to pass by Manila in order to
gather
her wardrobe; and to rehearse and coordinate with her pianist her
repertoire
for the aforesaid performance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner issued
the respondent a Singapore Airlines ticket for Flight No. SQ 27,
leaving
Frankfurt, Germany on January 27, 1991 bound for Singapore with onward
connections from Singapore to Manila. Flight No. SQ 27 was scheduled to
leave Frankfurt at 1:45 in the afternoon of January 27, 1991, arriving
at Singapore at 8:50 in the morning of January 28, 1991. The connecting
flight from Singapore to Manila, Flight No. SQ 72, was leaving
Singapore
at 11:00 in the morning of January 28, 1991, arriving in Manila at 2:20
in the afternoon of the same day.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 27, 1991,
Flight No. SQ 27 left Frankfurt but arrived in Singapore two hours late
or at about 11:00 in the morning of January 28, 1991. By then, the
aircraft
bound for Manila had left as scheduled, leaving the respondent and
about
25 other passengers stranded in the Changi Airport in Singapore.[6]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon disembarkation
at Singapore, the respondent approached the transit counter who
referred
her to the nightstop counter and told the lady employee thereat that it
was important for her to reach Manila on that day, January 28, 1991.
The
lady employee told her that there were no more flights to Manila for
that
day and that respondent had no choice but to stay in Singapore. Upon
respondent's
persistence, she was told that she can actually fly to Hong Kong going
to Manila but since her ticket was non-transferable, she would have to
pay for the ticket. The respondent could not accept the offer because
she
had no money to pay for it.[7]
Her pleas for the respondent to make arrangements to transport her to
Manila
were unheeded.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent then
requested the lady employee to use their phone to make a call to
Manila.
Over the employees' reluctance, the respondent telephoned her mother to
inform the latter that she missed the connecting flight. The respondent
was able to contact a family friend who picked her up from the airport
for her overnight stay in Singapore.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The next day, after
being brought back to the airport, the respondent proceeded to
petitioner's
counter which says: "Immediate Attention To Passengers with
Immediate
Booking." There were four or five passengers in line. The respondent
approached
petitioner's male employee at the counter to make arrangements for
immediate
booking only to be told: "Can't you see I am doing something." She
explained
her predicament but the male employee uncaringly retorted: "It's your
problem,
not ours."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent never
made it to Manila and was forced to take a direct flight from Singapore
to Malaysia on January 29, 1991, through the efforts of her mother and
travel agency in Manila. Her mother also had to travel to Malaysia
bringing
with her respondent's wardrobe and personal things needed for the
performance
that caused them to incur an expense of about P50,000.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a result of this
incident, the respondent's performance before the Royal Family of
Malaysia
was below par. Because of the rude and unkind treatment she received
from
the petitioner's personnel in Singapore, the respondent was engulfed
with
fear, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment causing her to suffer
mental
fatigue and skin rashes. She was thereby compelled to seek immediate
medical
attention upon her return to Manila for "acute urticaria."[12]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 15, 1993, the
RTC rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACCORDINGLY
and as prayed for, defendant Singapore Airlines is ordered to pay
herein
plaintiff Andion H. Fernandez the sum of:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. FIFTY
THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) PESOS as compensatory or actual damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. TWO HUNDRED
and FIFTY
THOUSAND (P250,000.00) PESOS as moral damages considering plaintiff's
professional
standing in the field of culture at home and abroad;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND
(P100,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. SEVENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND
(P75,000.00) PESOS as attorney's fees; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. To pay the
costs
of suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner appealed
the Decision to the Court of Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 10, 1998, the
CA promulgated the assailed decision finding no reversible error in the
appealed decision of the trial court.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Forthwith, the petitioner
filed the instant petition for review, raising the following errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT
THAT
AWARDED DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER
TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
chan
robles virtual law library
III
THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S COUNTERCLAIMS.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner assails
the award of damages contending that it exercised the extraordinary
diligence
required by law under the given circumstances. The delay of Flight No.
SQ 27 from Frankfurt to Singapore on January 28, 1991 for more than two
hours was due to a fortuitous event and beyond petitioner's control.
Inclement
weather prevented the petitioner's plane coming from Copenhagen,
Denmark
to arrive in Frankfurt on time on January 27, 1991. The plane could not
take off from the airport as the place was shrouded with fog. This
delay
caused a "snowball effect" whereby the other flights were consequently
delayed. The plane carrying the respondent arrived in Singapore two (2)
hours behind schedule.[16]
The delay was even compounded when the plane could not travel the
normal
route which was through the Middle East due to the raging Gulf War at
that
time. It had to pass through the restricted Russian airspace which was
more congested.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under these circumstances,
petitioner therefore alleged that it cannot be faulted for the delay in
arriving in Singapore on January 28, 1991 and causing the respondent to
miss her connecting flight to Manila.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner further
contends that it could not also be held in bad faith because its
personnel
did their best to look after the needs and interests of the passengers
including the respondent. Because the respondent and the other 25
passengers
missed their connecting flight to Manila, the petitioner automatically
booked them to the flight the next day and gave them free hotel
accommodations
for the night. It was respondent who did not take petitioner's offer
and
opted to stay with a family friend in Singapore.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner also
alleges that the action of the respondent was baseless and it tarnished
its good name and image earned through the years for which, it was
entitled
to damages in the amount of P1,000,000; exemplary damages of P500,000;
and attorney's fees also in the amount of P500,000.[18]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is barren
of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[19]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[20]
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.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
it is undisputed that the respondent carried a confirmed ticket for the
two-legged trip from Frankfurt to Manila:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
Frankfurt-Singapore;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2)
Singapore-Manila.
In her contract of carriage with the petitioner, the respondent
certainly
expected that she would fly to Manila on Flight No. SQ 72 on January
28,
1991. Since the petitioner did not transport the respondent as
covenanted
by it on said terms, the petitioner clearly breached its contract of
carriage
with the respondent. The respondent had every right to sue the
petitioner
for this breach. The defense that the delay was due to fortuitous
events
and beyond petitioner's control is unavailing. In PAL vs. CA,[22]
we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x x Undisputably, PAL's diversion of its
flight due to inclement weather was a fortuitous event. Nonetheless,
such
occurrence did not terminate PAL's contract with its passengers. Being
in the business of air carriage and the sole one to operate in the
country,
PAL is deemed to be equipped to deal with situations as in the case at
bar. What we said in one case once again must be stressed, i.e., the
relation
of carrier and passenger continues until the latter has been landed at
the port of destination and has left the carrier's premises. Hence, PAL
necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in
safeguarding
the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers until
they
have reached their final destination x
x
xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"x x
x
If the cause of non-fulfillment of the contract is due to a fortuitous
event, it has to be the sole and only cause (Art.
1755 C.C., Art. 1733 C.C.). Since part of the failure to comply
with
the obligation of common carrier to deliver its passengers safely to
their
destination lay in the defendant's failure to provide comfort and
convenience
to its stranded passengers using extraordinary diligence, the cause of
non-fulfillment is not solely and exclusively due to fortuitous event,
but due to something which defendant airline could have prevented,
defendant
becomes liable to plaintiff."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, in the instant
case, petitioner was not without recourse to enable it to fulfill its
obligation
to transport the respondent safely as scheduled as far as human care
and
foresight can provide to her destination. Tagged as a premiere airline
as it claims to be and with the complexities of air travel, it was
certainly
well-equipped to be able to foresee and deal with such situation. The
petitioner's
indifference and negligence by its absence and insensitivity was
exposed
by the trial court, thus:chan
robles virtual
(a) Under
Section
9.1 of its Traffic Manual (Exhibit 4) "x x x flights can be delayed to
await the uplift of connecting cargo and passengers arriving on a late
in-bound flight x x x" As adverted to by the trial court, x
x x "Flight SQ-27/28 maybe delayed for about half an hour to transfer
plaintiff
to her connecting flight. As pointed out above, delay is normal in
commercial
air transportation" (RTC Decision, p. 22); orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Petitioner
airlines
could have carried her on one of its flights bound for Hongkong and
arranged
for a connecting flight from Hongkong to Manila all on the same date.
But
then the airline personnel who informed her of such possibility told
her
that she has to pay for that flight. Regrettably, respondent did not
have
sufficient funds to pay for it. (TSN, 30 March 1992, pp. 8–9; RTC
Decision,
pp. 22–23) Knowing the predicament of the respondent, petitioner did
not
offer to shoulder the cost of the ticket for that flight; orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) As noted by
the
trial court from the account of petitioner's witness, Bob Khkimyong,
that
"a passenger such as the plaintiff could have been accommodated in
another
international airline such as Lufthansa to bring the plaintiff to
Singapore
early enough from Frankfurt provided that there was prior communication
from that station to enable her to catch the connecting flight to
Manila
because of the urgency of her business in Manila x x x (RTC
Decision,
p. 23)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner's
diligence
in communicating to its passengers the consequences of the delay in
their
flights was wanting. As elucidated by the trial court:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It maybe
that
delay in the take off and arrival of commercial aircraft could not be
avoided
and may be caused by diverse factors such as those testified to by
defendant's
pilot. However, knowing fully well that even before the plaintiff
boarded
defendant's Jumbo aircraft in Frankfurt bound for Singapore, it has
already
incurred a delay of two hours. Nevertheless, defendant did not take the
trouble of informing plaintiff, among its other passengers of such a
delay
and that in such a case, the usual practice of defendant airline will
be
that they have to stay overnight at their connecting airport; and much
less did it inquire from the plaintiff and the other 25 passengers
bound
for Manila whether they are amenable to stay overnight in Singapore and
to take the connecting flight to Manila the next day. Such information
should have been given and inquiries made in Frankfurt because even the
defendant airline's manual provides that in case of urgency to reach
his
or her destination on the same date, the head office of defendant in
Singapore
must be informed by telephone or telefax so as the latter may make
certain
arrangements with other airlines in Frankfurt to bring such a passenger
with urgent business to Singapore in such a manner that the latter can
catch up with her connecting flight such as S-27/28 without spending
the
night in Singapore x x x[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent was
not remiss in conveying her apprehension about the delay of the flight
when she was still in Frankfurt. Upon the assurance of petitioner's
personnel
in Frankfurt that she will be transported to Manila on the same date,
she
had every right to expect that obligation fulfilled. She testified, to
wit:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Now,
since
you were late, when the plane that arrived from Frankfurt was late, did
you not make arrangements so that your flight from Singapore to Manila
would be adjusted?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: I asked the
lady
at the ticket counter, the one who gave the boarding pass in Frankfurt
and I asked her, "Since my flight going to Singapore would be late,
what
would happen to my Singapore-Manila flight?" and then she said, "Don't
worry, Singapore Airlines would be responsible to bring you to Manila
on
the same date." And then they have informed the name of the officer, or
whatever, that our flight is going to be late.[24]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[25]
For petitioner's failure to bring the respondent to her destination, as
scheduled, we find the petitioner clearly liable for the breach of its
contract of carriage with the respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are convinced that
the petitioner acted in bad faith. Bad faith means a breach of known
duty
through some motive of interest or ill will. Self-enrichment or
fraternal
interest, and not personal ill will, may well have been the motive; but
it is malice nevertheless.[26]
Bad faith was imputed by the trial court when it found that the
petitioner's
employees at the Singapore airport did not accord the respondent the
attention
and treatment allegedly warranted under the circumstances. The lady
employee
at the counter was unkind and of no help to her. The respondent further
alleged that without her threats of suing the company, she was not
allowed
to use the company's phone to make long distance calls to her mother in
Manila. The male employee at the counter where it says: "Immediate
Attention
to Passengers with Immediate Booking" was rude to her when he curtly
retorted
that he was busy attending to other passengers in line. The trial court
concluded that this inattentiveness and rudeness of petitioner's
personnel
to respondent's plight was gross enough amounting to bad faith. This is
a finding that is generally binding upon the Court which we find no
reason
to disturb.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 2232 of the
Civil
Code provides that in a contractual or quasi-contractual
relationship,
exemplary damages may be awarded only if the defendant had acted in a
"wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner." In this case,
petitioner's
employees acted in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. The award
of exemplary damages is, therefore, warranted in this
case. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera with Associate Justices
Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Renato C. Dacudao, concurring.
[2]
Penned by Judge Apolonio R. Chavez, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, 30 March 1992, p. 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 11–12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Records, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, 11 June 1992, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 30 March 1992, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Records, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, 30 March 1992, pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, 30 March 1992, p. 21; Exhibit "E"; Records, p. 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Records, p. 202.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo, p. 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, pp. 15–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, 28 May 1992, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at. 15–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Records, pp. 45–47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Alitalia Airways vs. CA, 187 SCRA 763 (1990).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
PAL vs. CA, 226 SCRA 423 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
China Airlines, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 129988,
July
14, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Supra at note 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Records, pp. 198–199.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, 30 March 1992, pp. 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Alitalia Airways vs. CA, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431 (1966).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |