Northwest Airlines v. Catapang
Northwest Airlines v. Catapang
Northwest Airlines v. Catapang
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES , J : p
Del n S. Catapang (respondent), a lawyer and, at the time material to the case at
bar, Assistant Vice President and Head of the Special Projects Department, Corporate
Services Division of the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), was directed by UCPB to
go to Paris on a business trip. As he intended to proceed, after his trip to Paris, to the
United States to visit his siblings, he requested First United Travel, Inc. (FUT) to issue
him a ticket that would allow rebooking or rerouting of flights within the United States.
Complying with respondent's requirement, FUT informed him, via telephone, that
Northwest Airlines, Inc. (petitioner) was willing to accommodate his request provided
he would pay an additional US$50 for every rebooking or rerouting of ight.
Respondent agreed with the condition, hence, FUT, as petitioner's authorized agent,
issued respondent a ticket covering the New York to Los Angeles via Detroit and the
Los Angeles to Manila segments of his travel, indicating thereon the following details of
his itinerary:
xxx xxx xxx
Upon his return to the Philippines, respondent, by letter of March 24, 1992, wrote
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
petitioner:
At about 9:30 in the morning of March 11, 1992, I went to the sales o ce
in the World Trade Center where I explained to your black woman representative
my predicament. Your representative rudely told me that my ticket is the
restrictive type and that my ight can not be rebooked or rerouted. I explained that
the only restriction on my ticket is that I should pay US$50.00 if I have to rebook
or reroute my ight and asked your representative to read the restriction. Your
representative rudely and impolitely retorted that I could not understand
English and that unless I pay the amount of US$644.00, I cannot get a rebooking
and rerouting. Despite my appeal and protestation, she did not reconsider her
decision. As I was badly needed in Detroit on the evening of the same day and
had to be back in Manila on the 14th of March, I was compelled to pay, under
protest, the amount of US$644.00 using my American Express Card as my cash
was insu cient to cover the amount. It was only then that I was issued ticket no.
012:4488:504:099.
Considering that my ticket was cleared with you prior to its issuance and
that FUT is your duly accredited agent, you are bound by the terms of the ticket
issued by FUT in your behalf. You have no right to unilaterally change the tenor of
your contract during its effectivity without my consent.
Your airline's willful breach of the terms and conditions of my ticket and
the shabby treatment that I received from your personnel hurt my feeling,
humiliated and embarrassed me in the presence of my brother-in-law and other
people nearby who witnessed the incident. The fact that your employee did that to
a bank o cer and a lawyer like me only shows that your airline can also do the
same to others, not to mention the poor and hapless persons.
Because I could not bear my wounded feeling, the shabby treatment, the
humiliation and the embarrassment that I received from your employee, I asked
for the cancellation and refund of my ticket covering my trip from Los Angeles to
the Philippines for which I was given a refund application slip no. 012
0230189256 3 by your ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport on March 12,
1992.
5. Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 3
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of June 30, 2006 4 affirmed the trial
court's Decision with modification, thus:
"WHEREFORE, except for the reduction of the award of moral damages
from P800,000.00 to P400,000.00, the appealed Decision dated October 5, 2000 is
affirmed in all other respects.
Hence, the present petition which assails the award to respondent of moral
damages, petitioner positing that it was not guilty of breach of contract. In any event, it
assails the award to respondent of exemplary damages, it positing that the same is not
recoverable in cases of breach of contract of carriage unless the carrier is guilty of wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent conduct of which it is not, so it claims.
Additionally, petitioner assails 1) the award of attorney's fees, positing that under
Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation cannot, as a
general rule, be recovered, and of actual damages for respondent did not suffer any
pecuniary loss; 2) the order for reimbursement of ling fees there being no basis; and 3)
the award of a total of P700,000.00 in damages for being excessive and unprecedented.
The petition is bereft of merit. CcEHaI
Petitioner's breach in this case was aggravated by the undenied treatment received
by respondent when he tried to rebook his ticket. Instead of civilly informing respondent
that his ticket could not be rebooked, petitioner's agent in New York exhibited rudeness in
the presence of respondent's brother-in-law and other customers, insulting respondent by
telling him that he could not understand English.
Passengers have the right to be treated by a carrier's employees with kindness,
respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against
personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees.
So it is that any discourteous conduct on the part of these employees toward a
passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier. 7
The award of moral and exemplary damages to respondent is thus justified.
The inclusion of ling fees as part of the actual damages is super uous, if not
erroneous, the same being chargeable to the "cost of suit" awarded by the trial court and
a rmed by the appellate court. Sections 8 and 10, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court
enlighten:
SEC. 8. Costs, how taxed. — In inferior courts, the costs shall be taxed
by the justice of the peace or municipal judge and included in the judgment. In
superior courts, costs shall be taxed by the clerk of the corresponding court on
ve days' written notice given by the prevailing party to the adverse party. With
this notice shall be served a statement of the items of costs claimed by the
prevailing party, veri ed by his oath or that of his attorney. Objections to the
taxation shall be made in writing, specifying the items objected to. Either party
may appeal to the court from the clerk's taxation. The costs shall be inserted in
the judgment if taxed before its entry, and payment thereof shall be enforced by
execution. aCSHDI
b) For his own attendance, and that of his attorney, down to and including
final judgment, twenty pesos;
c) For each witness necessarily produced by him, for each day's necessary
attendance of such witness at the trial, two pesos, and his lawful traveling
fees;
As for the award of attorney's fees, the trial court did not state the factual and
legal basis thereof. 8 The transcript of stenographic notes of the lower court's
proceedings do not show that respondent adduced proof to sustain his general
averment of a retainer agreement in the amount of P200,000.00. The award must thus
be deleted.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision of June 30, 2006 is AFFIRME D with
MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees is deleted for lack of basis. And the
award of actual damages of P7,372.50 representing filing fees is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Chico-Nazario, Leonardo-de Castro and Peralta, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Additional member per Special Order No. 664 dated July 15, 2009.
1. Records, pp. 11-12.