Savellano v Northwest Airlines
won't be direct to Mla; being bumped off made
Petitioners were passengers of respondent airline
and their contract of carriage with the latter was
for the San Francisco-Tokyo(Narita)-Manila
ights. Petitioners claimed, however, that this
itinerary was not followed when the aircraft used
for the first segment of the journey developed
engine trouble. They had to make a stop to Seattle
and stay their overnight. Petitioners likewise
claimed that the contents of their baggage which
was not allowed to be placed inside the
passengers' baggage compartment were stolen.
Consequently, petitioners led a case for damages
which was decided by the trial court in their favor.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the trial court.
The change of petitioners' ight itinerary does not
fall under the situation covered by the phrase
"may alter or omit stopping places shown in the
ticket in case of necessity." A case of necessity
must rst be proven. The burden of proving it
necessarily fell on respondent. This responsibility
it failed to discharge. Respondent failed to show
a case of necessity for changing the stopping
place from Tokyo to Los Angeles and Seoul.
Thus, respondent committed a breach of the
contract of carriage.
However, the Court ruled that moral damages
cannot be awarded in the case at bar because of
the absence of bad faith, ill will, malice or wanton
conduct on the part of respondent. Neither are
exemplary damages proper in the present case
because respondent has not been proven to have
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner. Nevertheless,
the Court awarded nominal damages to
petitioners. Nominal damages are recoverable if
no actual, substantial or speci c damages were
shown to have resulted from the breach.
Things to take note of: Victorino Savellano
(Savellano) was a Cabugao, Ilocos Sur mayor for
many terms, former Chairman of the Commission
on Elections and Regional Trial Court (RTC)
judge. His wife, [Petitioner] Virginia is a
businesswoman and operates several rural banks
in Ilocos Sur.
Skipped hotel breakfast; flight to be boarded
wife nervous, took valium
Northwest failed to show a "case of necessity" for
changing the stopping place from Tokyo to Los
Angeles and Seoul. It is a fact that some of the
passengers on the distressed ight continued on to
the Tokyo (Narita) connecting place. No
explanation whatsoever was given to petitioners
as to why they were not similarly allowed to do
so. It may be that the Northwest connecting ight
from Seattle to Tokyo to Manila could no longer
accommodate them. Yet it may also be that there
were other carriers that could have
accommodated them for these sectors of their
journey, and whose route they might have
preferred to the more circuitous one unilaterally
chosen for them by respondent.
Damages: There is no persuasive evidence that
they were maliciously singled out to y the
Seattle-Los Angeles-Seoul-Manila route. It
appears that the passengers of the distressed ight
were randomly divided into two groups. One
group was made to take the Tokyo-Manila ight;
and the other, the Los Angeles-Seoul-Manila
ight. The selection of who was to take which
flight was handled via the computer reservation
system, which took into account only the
passengers' final destination
The records show that respondent was impelled
by sincere motives to get petitioners to their nal
destination by whatever was the most expeditious
course — in its judgment, if not in theirs. Though
they claim that they were not accommodated on
Flight 27 from Seattle to Tokyo because
respondent had taken on Japanese passengers,
petitioners failed to present convincing evidence
to back this allegation. In the absence of
convincing evidence, we cannot find respondent
guilty of bad faith.
In the present case, we must consider that
petitioners suffered the inconvenience of having
to wake up early after a bad night and having to
miss breakfast; as well as the fact that they were
business class passengers. They paid more for
better service; thus, rushing them and making
them miss their small comforts was not a trivial
thing. We also consider their social and of official
status.
Yobido v CA
Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor children,
Ardee and Jasmin, boarded at Mangagoy, Surigao
del Sur, a Yobido bus bound for Davao City.
Along Picop road in Km. 17, Sta. Maria, Agusan
del Sur. The winding road it traversed was not
cemented and was wet due to the rain; it was
rough with crushed rocks. The bus which was full
of passengers had cargoes on top. Since it was
"running fast," she cautioned the driver to slow
down but he merely stared at her through the
mirror. At around 3:30 p.m., in Trento, she heard
something explode and immediately, the bus fell
into a ravine. The left front tire of the bus
suddenly exploded. The bus fell into a ravine
around three (3) feet from the road and struck a
tree which resulted in the death of Tito Tumboy
and physical injuries to other passengers.
Thereafter, a complaint for breach of contract of
carriage, damages and attorney's fees was filed by
Leny and her children against Alberta Yobido,
the owner of the bus, and Cresencio Yobido, its
driver in the RTC. After trial, the lower court
rendered a decision dismissing the action for lack
of merit ruling that the cause for the blowout was
a mystery. Respondents appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which reversed trial court and awarded
plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 for the death of
Tito Tumboy, P30,000.00 in moral damages, and
P7,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses..
Respondents appeal by asserting that the tire
blowout that caused the death of Tito Tumboy
was a caso fortuito.
As a rule, when a passenger boards a common
carrier, he takes the risks incidental to the mode
of travel he has taken. After all, a carrier is not an
insurer of the safety of its passengers and is not
bound absolutely and at all events to carry them
safely and without injury. 9 However, when a
passenger is injured or dies, while traveling, the
law presumes that the common carrier is
negligent. Under the circumstances of this case,
the explosion of the new tire may not be
considered a fortuitous event. There are human
factors involved in the situation. The fact that the
tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free
from manufacturing defects or that it was
properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the
fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is
of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the
conclusion that it could not explode within five
days' use. Be that as it may, it is settled that an
accident caused either by defects in the
automobile or through the negligence of its driver
is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier
from liability for damages.
Having failed to discharge its duty to overthrow
the presumption of negligence with clear and
convincing evidence, petitioners are hereby held
liable for damages. Article 1764 19 in relation to
Article 2206 20 of the Civil Code prescribes the
amount of at least three thousand pesos as
damages for the death of a passenger. Under
prevailing jurisprudence, the award of damages
under Article 2206 has been increased to fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
Moral damages are generally not recoverable in
culpa contractual except when bad faith had been
proven. However, the same damages may be
recovered when breach of contract of carriage
results in the death of a passenger, 22 as in this
case. Exemplary damages, awarded by way of
example or correction for the public good when
moral damages are awarded, may likewise be
recovered in contractual obligations if the
defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner. 24 Because
petitioners failed to exercise the extraordinary
diligence required of a common carrier, which
resulted in the death of Tito Tumboy, it is deemed
to have acted recklessly. As such, private
respondents shall be entitled to exemplary
damages. SC affirms + 20k exemplary
Singson v CA
Carlos Singson and his cousin Crescentino
Tiongson bought from Cathay Pacific Airways,
Ltd. (CATHAY), at its Metro Manila ticket outlet
two open-dated, identically routed, round trip
plane tickets for the purpose of spending their
vacation in the United States. Each ticket
consisted of six flight coupons corresponding to
their itinerary. The procedure was that at the start
of each leg of the trip a flight coupon
corresponding to the particular sector of the travel
would be removed from the ticket booklet so that
at the end of the trip no more coupon would be
left in the ticket booklet. After staying in Los
Angeles for about three weeks they decided to
return to the Philippines. While Tiongson easily
got a booking for the flight, Singson was not as
lucky. It was discovered that there has been a
switch in the flight coupon that was detached in
his ticket booklet which caused delay for his
return to Manila. Singson commenced an action
for damages against Cathay before the Regional
Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur. The trial court
rendered a decision in favor of petitioner holding
that Cathay was guilty of gross negligence
amounting to malice and bad faith for which it
was adjudged to pay petitioner actual damages
with interest at the legal rate, moral damages,
exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and, to pay
the costs. On appeal by Cathay, the Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's finding that
there was gross negligence amounting to bad faith
or fraud and, accordingly, modified its judgment
by deleting the awards for moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees
P20,000.00 for actual damages; P500,000.00 for
moral damages, P400,000.00 for exemplary
damages, P100,000.00 for attorney's fees, and, to
pay the costs.
However, the P500,000.00 moral damages and
P400,000.00 exemplary damages awarded by the
trial court have to be reduced. The well-
entrenched principle is that the grant of moral
damages depends upon the discretion of the court
based on the circumstances of each case. 16 This
discretion is limited by the principle that the
"amount awarded should not be palpably and
scandalously excessive" as to indicate that it was
the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of
the trial court. 17 Damages are not intended to
enrich the complainant at the expense of the
defendant. They are awarded only to alleviate the
moral suffering that the injured party had
undergone by reason of the defendant's culpable
action. 18 There is no hard-and-fast rule in the
determination of what would be a fair amount of
moral damages since each case must be governed
by its own peculiar facts.
Smith Bell
Catalino Borja, customs inspector of the Bureau
of Customs, was assigned to inspect petitioner's
vessel, M/T King Family, which was due to arrive
at the port of Manila on September 24, 1987. At
about 11 o'clock in the morning on September 24,
1987, while the vessel was unloading chemicals
unto the two barges owned by respondent ITTC,
a sudden explosion occurred setting the vessels
afire. Respondent Borja was at that time inside
the cabin preparing reports. As a result of the fire
and explosion, respondent Borja suffered
damages and injuries. His attending physician
diagnosed respondent Borja to be permanently
disabled. Hence, for injuries suffered, respondent
Borja asked for damages. However, both
petitioner and respondent ITTC denied liabilities
and attributed to each other negligence.
Thereafter, the Regional Trial Court found that
the fire and the explosion had originated from
petitioner's vessel. It, therefore, held petitioner
liable for damages and loss of income.
P495,360.00 as actual damages for loss of
earning capacity:
The amount of P100,000.00 for moral damages;
and
The amount of P50,000.00 for and as reasonable
attorney's fees.
The Court found the petitioner negligent. While
knowing that their vessel was carrying dangerous
inflammable chemicals — alkyl benzene and
methyl methacrylate monomer — its officers and
crew failed to take all the necessary precautions
to prevent an accident. The Court held that the
owner or the person in possession and control of
a vessel and the vessel are liable for all natural
and proximate damage caused to persons and
property by reason of negligent management or
navigation. Hence, the decision of the Court of
Appeals was affirmed by the Court, but with
modification with respect to the amount of actual
damages for loss of earning capacity. SEHACI
Petitioner insists that Borja is not entitled to the
full amount of damages awarded by the lower
courts. It disputes the use of his gross earning as
basis for the computation of the award for loss of
earning capacity. Both courts, in computing the
value of such loss, used the remaining years of the
victim as a government employee and the amount
he had been receiving per annum at the time of
the incident.
Counsel for Respondent Borja, on the other hand,
claims that petitioner had no cause to complain,
because the miscomputation had ironically been
in its favor. The multiplier used in the
computation was erroneously based on the
remaining years in government service, instead of
the life expectancy, of the victim.. Borja's counsel
also points out that the award was based on the
former's meager salary in 1987, or about 23 years
ago when the foreign exchange was still P14 to
$1.
Both parties have a point. In determining the
reasonableness of the damages awarded under
Article 1764 in conjunction with Article 2206 of
the Civil Code, the factors to be considered are:
(1) life expectancy (considering the health of the
victim and the mortality table which is deemed
conclusive) and loss of earning capacity; (b)
pecuniary loss, loss of support and service; and
(c) moral and mental sufferings. 19 The loss of
earning capacity is based mainly on the number
of years remaining in the person's expected life
span. In turn, this number is the basis of the
damages that shall be computed and the rate at
which the loss sustained by the heirs shall be
fixed.
Petitioner is correct in arguing that it is net
income (or gross income less living expenses)
which is to be used in the computation of the
award for loss of income. he amount recoverable
is not the loss of the entire earning, but rather the
loss of that portion of the earnings which the
beneficiary would have received." Hence, in
fixing the amount of the said damages, the
necessary expenses of the deceased should be
deducted from his earnings.In other words, only
net earnings, not gross earnings, are to be
considered; that is, the total of the earnings less
expenses necessary in the creation of such
earnings or income, less living and other
incidental expenses. When there is no showing
that the living expenses constituted a smaller
percentage of the gross income, we fix the living
expenses at half of the gross income
Counsel for Respondent Borja is also correct in
saying that life expectancy should not be based on
the retirement age of government employees,
which is pegged at 65.In calculating the life
expectancy of an individual for the purpose of
determining loss of earning capacity under
Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code, it is assumed
that the deceased would have earned income even
after retirement from a particular job.
Respondent Borja should not be situated
differently just because he was a government
employee. Private employees, given the
retirement packages provided by their companies,
usually retire earlier than government employees;
yet, the life expectancy of the former is not
pegged at 65 years.Respondent Borja's demise
earlier than the estimated life span is of no
moment. For purposes of determining loss of
earning capacity, life expectancy remains at 80.
Otherwise, the computation of loss of earning
capacity will never become final, being always
subject to the eventuality of the victim's death.
The computation should not change even if Borja
lived beyond 80 years.
Damages in the amount of P320,240 as loss of
earning capacity, moral damages in the amount of
P100,000, plus another P50,000 as attorney's
fees.