1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

*
G.R. No. 142305. December 10, 2003.

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, petitioner, vs.

ANDION FERNANDEZ, respondent.

Common Carriers; Air Transportation; When an airline issues

a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a
certain date, a contract of carriage arises; 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.—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. 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. 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.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

475

VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 475

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

Same; Same; When a passenger contracts for a specific flight,

he has a purpose in making that choice which must be respected.—
When a passenger contracts for a specific flight, he has a purpose
in making that choice which must be respected. This choice, once
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

exercised, must not be impaired by a breach on the part of the

airline without the latter incurring any liability. 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.
Same; Same; Bad Faith; Words and Phrases; 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;
Inattentiveness and rudeness of an airline’s personnel to a
passenger’s plight may amount to bad faith.—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. 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.
Same; Same; Where the airline’s employees acted in a wanton,
oppressive or malevolent manner, the award of exemplary
damages is warranted.—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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

     Teodoro A. Pastrana for petitioner.

     Padlan, Sutton & Associates for respondent.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is 1a petition for review on certiorari assailing the

Decision2 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
164 in Civil Case No. 60985 filed by the respondent for
damages.

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,
3
pursuing a Master’s Degree
in Music majoring in Voice.
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 4
Manila, she would proceed to Malaysia on the next
day. 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.
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
5
in Manila at 2:20 in the afternoon of the
same day.

_______________

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.
3 TSN, 30 March 1992, p. 22.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

4 Id., at pp. 11-12.

5 Records p. 2.

477

VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 477

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

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 6 passengers stranded in the Changi
Airport in Singapore.
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
nontransferable, she would have to pay for the ticket. The
respondent could not7
accept the offer because she had no
money to pay for it. Her pleas for the respondent to make 8
arrangements to transport her to Manila were unheeded.
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 from9
the airport for her overnight stay in
Singapore.
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 10employee
uncaringly retorted: “It’s your problem, not ours.”
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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

_______________

6 TSN, 11 June 1992, p. 17.

7 TSN, 30 March 1992, p. 8.
8 Records, p. 3.
9 TSN, 30 March 1992, pp. 9-10.
10 Id., at p. 14.

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

mother also had to travel to Malaysia bringing with her

respondent’s wardrobe and personal things needed for the
performance
11
that caused them to incur an expense of about
P50,000.
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 12
attention upon her return to Manila for
“acute urticaria.”
On June 15, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision with the
following dispositive portion:

“ACCORDINGLY and as prayed for, defendant Singapore Airlines

is ordered to pay herein plaintiff Andion H. Fernandez the sum of:

1. FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as compensatory

or actual damages;
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;
3. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as
exemplary damages;
4. SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS as
attorney’s fees; and
5. To pay the costs of suit.
13
SO ORDERED.”

The petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of

Appeals.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

On June 10, 1998, the CA promulgated the assailed

decision finding no14
reversible error in the appealed decision
of the trial court.
Forthwith, the petitioner filed the instant petition for
review, raising the following errors:

_______________

11 Id., at p. 23.
12 TSN, 30 March 1992, p. 21; Exhibit “E”; Records, p. 80.
13 Records, p. 202.
14 Rollo, p. 36.

479

VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 479

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

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.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN

HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED 15

IN
DISMISSING THE PETITIONER’S COUNTERCLAIMS.

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
16
arrived in Singapore two (2)
hours behind schedule. The delay was even compounded
when the plane could not travel the normal route which
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

was through the Middle East due to the raging Gulf War at
that time. It had to pass through 17the restricted Russian
airspace which was more congested.
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.
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.

_______________

15 Rollo, pp. 15-16.

16 TSN, 28 May 1992, p. 8.
17 Id., at. pp. 15-16.

480

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

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.
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;
18
and attorney’s fees also in
the amount of P500,000.
The petition is barren of merit.
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
19
opens itself to a
suit for a breach of contract of carriage.
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 persons20
with due regard for all the
circumstances. In an action for breach of contract of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

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 the21 contract and
the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the respondent
carried a confirmed ticket for the two-legged trip from
Frankfurt to Manila: 1) Frankfurt-Singapore; and 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

_______________

18 Records, pp. 45-47.

19 Alitalia Airways vs. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 763 (1990).
20 PAL vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 423 (1993).
21 China Airlines, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 129988,
July 14, 2003, 406 SCRA 113.

481

VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 481

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

delay was due to fortuitous events 22

and beyond petitioner’s
control is unavailing. In PAL vs. CA we held that:

. . . . 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 . . .

...
“. . . 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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

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.”

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:

(a) Under Section 9.1 of its Traffic Manual (Exhibit (4)

“. . . flights can be delayed to await the uplift of
connecting cargo and passengers arriving on a late
in-bound flight . . .” As adverted to by the trial
court, . . . “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); or

_______________

22 Supra at note 28.

482

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

(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; or
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

(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 . .
. (RTC Decision, p. 23)

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:

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
23
such as S-27/28 without spending
the night in Singapore. . .

The respondent was not remiss in conveying her

apprehension about the delay of the flight when she was
still in Frankfurt. Upon

_______________

23 Records, pp. 198-199.

483

VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 483

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

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:

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?
A: I asked the lady at the ticket counter, the one who gave
the boarding pass in Frankfort 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 24
officer, or
whatever, that our flight is going to be late.

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 25of the airline without the latter
incurring any liability. 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.
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
26
have been the
motive; but it is malice nevertheless. 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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

_______________

24 TSN, 30 March 1992, pp. 6-7.

25 Alitalia Airways vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
26 Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways, 16 SCRA 431 (1966).

484

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Fernandez

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.
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.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez

and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—In awarding moral damages for breach of

contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and
deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted
fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. (Cervantes vs.
Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 25 [1999])
Within our jurisdiction, the Warsaw Convention can be
applied or ignored, depending on the peculiar facts
presented by each case. (United Airlines vs. Uy, 318 SCRA
576 [1999])

——o0o——

485

VOL. 417, DECEMBER 10, 2003 485

Alarilla, Sr. vs. Ocampo

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 417

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc9eaf46f752eb370003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13