1) Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Reyes family when it did not allow them to board their return flight to Manila from Hong Kong as stated on their tickets.
2) While Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel were negligent in their booking and ticketing processes, their actions did not demonstrate malice or bad faith, so the Reyes family is not entitled to moral or exemplary damages.
3) The Reyes family is entitled to nominal damages from Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel as their rights were violated, even if no actual losses were suffered, in order to recognize this violation.
1) Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Reyes family when it did not allow them to board their return flight to Manila from Hong Kong as stated on their tickets.
2) While Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel were negligent in their booking and ticketing processes, their actions did not demonstrate malice or bad faith, so the Reyes family is not entitled to moral or exemplary damages.
3) The Reyes family is entitled to nominal damages from Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel as their rights were violated, even if no actual losses were suffered, in order to recognize this violation.
1) Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Reyes family when it did not allow them to board their return flight to Manila from Hong Kong as stated on their tickets.
2) While Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel were negligent in their booking and ticketing processes, their actions did not demonstrate malice or bad faith, so the Reyes family is not entitled to moral or exemplary damages.
3) The Reyes family is entitled to nominal damages from Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel as their rights were violated, even if no actual losses were suffered, in order to recognize this violation.
1) Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Reyes family when it did not allow them to board their return flight to Manila from Hong Kong as stated on their tickets.
2) While Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel were negligent in their booking and ticketing processes, their actions did not demonstrate malice or bad faith, so the Reyes family is not entitled to moral or exemplary damages.
3) The Reyes family is entitled to nominal damages from Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel as their rights were violated, even if no actual losses were suffered, in order to recognize this violation.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
ALHAMBRA, RAYMOND PATRICK P.
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v JUANITRA REYES, WILFREDO ROY REYES, SIXTA
LAPUZ, and SAMPAGUITA TRAVEL CORP. G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013 PEREZ, J.: Moral damages, in breaches of contract, is in order upon a showing that the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith Nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindication or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. FACTS Wilfredo Reyes made a travel reservation with Sampaguita Travel for his familys trip to Adelaide, Australia scheduled from April 12, 1997 to May 4, 1997. Upon cooking and confirmation of their flight schedule, Wilfredo paid for the airfare and was issued four Cathay Pacific round-trip airplane tickets for Manila-Hong Kong-Adelaide-Hong Kong-Manila. One week before they were scheduled to fly back home, Wilfredo reconfirmed his familys return flight with the Cathay Pacific office in Adelaide, they were advised that the reservation was still okay as scheduled. On the day of their scheduled departure from Adelaide, Wilfredo and his family arrived at the airport on time. When the airport check-in opened, Wilfredo was informed by a staff from Cathay Pacific that the Reyeses did not have confirmed reservations, and only Sixtas flight booking was confirmed. Nevertheless, they were allowed to board the flight to Hong Kong due to adamant pleas from Wilfredo. When they arrived in Hong Kong, they were again informed the same problem. Unfortunately this time, the Reyeses were not allowed to board because the flight to Manila was fully booked. Only Sixta was allowed to proceed to Manila from Hong Kong. On the following day, the Reyeses were finally allowed to board the next flight bound for Manila. Upon arriving in the Philippines, Wilfredo went Sampaguita Travel to report the incident. He was informed by Sampaguita Travel that it was actually Cathay Pacific which cancelled their bookings. ISSUE: Was there a breached its contract of carriage with the REYES and are the reyes entitled for damages ? Can Sampaguita travel be aslo held liable for damages due to its negligence? HELD:
Yes, Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Reyeses when it disallowed them to board the plane in Hong Kong going to Manila on the date reflected on their tickets. Thus, Cathay Pacific opened itself to claims for compensatory, actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of suit. The Reyeses entered into a contract of carriage with Cathay Pacific. As far as respondents are concerned, they were holding valid and confirmed airplane tickets. The ticket in itself is a valid written contract of carriage whereby for a consideration, Cathay Pacific undertook to carry respondents in its airplane for a round-trip flight from Manila to Adelaide, Australia and then back to Manila. In fact, Wilfredo called Cathay Pacific office in Adelaide one week before his return flight to re-confirm his booking. He was even assured by a staff of Cathay Pacific that he does not need to reconfirm his booking. With regards to Sampaguita Travel, the contractual relation between them and the Reyeses is a contract of services. The object of the contract is arranging and facilitating the latters booking and ticketing. It was even Sampaguita Travel which issued the tickets. Since the contract between the Reyeses and Sampaguita Travel is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code There was indeed failure on the part of Sampaguita Travel to exercise due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract of services. It was established by Cathay Pacific, through the generation of the Passenger Name Records (PNR), that Sampaguita Travel made two fictitious bookings for Juanita and Michael. Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an award of moral damages, in breaches of contract, is in order upon a showing that the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. What the law considers as bad faith which may furnish the ground for an award of moral damages would be faith in securing the contract and in the execution thereof, as well as in enforcement of its terms, or any other kind of deceit. In the same vein, to warrant the award of exemplary damage, defendant must have acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. What may be attributed to Cathay Pacific is negligence concerning the lapses in their process of confirming passenger bookings and reservation, done through travel agencies. But this negligence is not so gross as to amount to bad faith. Cathay Pacific was not motivated by malice or bad faith in not allowing respondents to board on their return flight to Manila. It is evident and was in fact proven by Cathay Pacific that its refusal to honor the return flight bookings of respondents was due to the cancellation of one booking
and the two other bookings were not reflected on its computerized booking system. Likewise, Sampaguita Travel cannot be held liable for moral damages. True, Sampaguita Travel was negligent in the conduct of its booking and ticketing which resulted in the cancellation of flights. But its actions were not proven to have been tainted with malice or bad faith. Under these circumstances, respondents are not entitled to moral and exemplary damages. With respect to attorneys fees, we uphold the appellate courts finding on lack of factual and legal justification to award attorneys fees Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindication or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. The amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by respondents considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special reasons extant in the case. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and taking into account the relevant circumstance, such as the failure of some respondents to board the flight on schedule and the slight breach in the legal obligations of the airline company to comply with the terms of the contract, the airplane ticket and of the travel agency to make the correct bookings. Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel acted together in creating the confusion in the bookings which led to the erroneous cancellation of respondents bookings. Their negligence is the proximate cause of the technical injury sustained by respondents. Therefore, they have become joint tortfeasors, whose responsibility for quasi-delict, under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, is solidary.
United States v. Richard Alan Brady, Frank Pontillo, Also Known As Franky Steel, Robert Montano, Michael Dematteo and John Pate, 26 F.3d 282, 2d Cir. (1994)
