G.R. No.

70462 August 11, 1988 By virtue of the above agreements, plaintiff Pangan caused the preparation
of the requisite promotional handbills and still pictures for which he paid the
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner, total sum of P12,900.00 (Exhs. B, B-1, C and C1). Likewise in preparation for
vs. his trip abroad to comply with his contracts, plaintiff Pangan purchased
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RENE V. PANGAN, SOTANG BASTOS fourteen clutch bags, four capiz lamps and four barong tagalog, with a total
PRODUCTIONS and ARCHER PRODUCTIONS, respondents. value of P4,400.00 (Exhs. D, D-1, E, and F).

Guerrero & Torres for petitioner. On May 18, 1978, plaintiff Pangan obtained from defendant Pan Am's Manila
Office, through the Your Travel Guide, an economy class airplane ticket with
No. 0269207406324 (Exh. G) for passage from Manila to Guam on
Jose B. Layug for private respondents.
defendant's Flight No. 842 of May 27,1978, upon payment by said plaintiff of
the regular fare. The Your Travel Guide is a tour and travel office owned and
managed by plaintiffs witness Mila de la Rama.

CORTES, J.: On May 27, 1978, two hours before departure time plaintiff Pangan was at
the defendant's ticket counter at the Manila International Airport and
Before the Court is a petition filed by an international air carrier seeking to limit its liability for presented his ticket and checked in his two luggages, for which he was given
lost baggage, containing promotional and advertising materials for films to be exhibited in baggage claim tickets Nos. 963633 and 963649 (Exhs. H and H-1). The two
Guam and the U.S.A., clutch bags, barong tagalogs and personal belongings, to the amount luggages contained the promotional and advertising materials, the clutch
specified in the airline ticket absent a declaration of a higher valuation and the payment of bags, barong tagalog and his personal belongings. Subsequently, Pangan
additional charges. was informed that his name was not in the manifest and so he could not take
Flight No. 842 in the economy class. Since there was no space in the
The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the trial court and adopted by the appellate economy class, plaintiff Pangan took the first class because he wanted to be
court, are as follows: on time in Guam to comply with his commitment, paying an additional sum of
$112.00.
On April 25, 1978, plaintiff Rene V. Pangan, president and general manager
of the plaintiffs Sotang Bastos and Archer Production while in San Francisco, When plaintiff Pangan arrived in Guam on the date of May 27, 1978, his two
Califonia and Primo Quesada of Prime Films, San Francisco, California, luggages did not arrive with his flight, as a consequence of which his
entered into an agreement (Exh. A) whereby the former, for and in agreements with Slutchnick and Quesada for the exhibition of the films in
consideration of the amount of US $2,500.00 per picture, bound himself to Guam and in the United States were cancelled (Exh. L). Thereafter, he filed a
supply the latter with three films. 'Ang Mabait, Masungit at ang Pangit,' 'Big written claim (Exh. J) for his missing luggages.
Happening with Chikiting and Iking,' and 'Kambal Dragon' for exhibition in the
United States. It was also their agreement that plaintiffs would provide the Upon arrival in the Philippines, Pangan contacted his lawyer, who made the
necessary promotional and advertising materials for said films on or before necessary representations to protest as to the treatment which he received
May 30, 1978. from the employees of the defendant and the loss of his two luggages (Exh.
M, O, Q, S, and T). Defendant Pan Am assured plaintiff Pangan that his
On his way home to the Philippines, plaintiff Pangan visited Guam where he grievances would be investigated and given its immediate consideration
contacted Leo Slutchnick of the Hafa Adai Organization. Plaintiff Pangan (Exhs. N, P and R). Due to the defendant's failure to communicate with
likewise entered into a verbal agreement with Slutchnick for the exhibition of Pangan about the action taken on his protests, the present complaint was
two of the films above-mentioned at the Hafa Adai Theater in Guam on May filed by the plaintiff. (Pages 4-7, Record On Appeal). [Rollo, pp. 27-29.]
30, 1978 for the consideration of P7,000.00 per picture (p. 11, tsn, June 20,
1979). Plaintiff Pangan undertook to provide the necessary promotional and On the basis of these facts, the Court of First Instance found petitioner liable and rendered
advertising materials for said films on or before the exhibition date on May judgment as follows:
30,1978.
 (1) Ordering defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc. to pay all the carriers for death or personal injury and in respect of loss of or damage to
plaintiffs the sum of P83,000.00, for actual damages, with interest thereon at baggage. See also notice headed "Advice to International Passengers on
the rate of 14% per annum from December 6, 1978, when the complaint was Limitation of Liability.
filed, until the same is fully paid, plus the further sum of P10,000.00 as
attorney's fees; CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

(2) Ordering defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc. to pay plaintiff 1. As used in this contract "ticket" means this passenger ticket and baggage
Rene V. Pangan the sum of P8,123.34, for additional actual damages, with check of which these conditions and the notices form part, "carriage" is
interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from December 6, 1978, until equivalent to "transportation," "carrier" means all air carriers that carry or
the same is fully paid; undertake to carry the passenger or his baggage hereunder or perform any
other service incidental to such air carriage. "WARSAW CONVENTION"
(3) Dismissing the counterclaim interposed by defendant Pan American means the convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to
World Airways, Inc.; and International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw, 12th October 1929, or that
Convention as amended at The Hague, 28th September 1955, whichever
(4) Ordering defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc. to pay the costs of may be applicable.
suit. [Rollo, pp. 106-107.]
2. Carriage hereunder is subject to the rules and limitations relating to liability
On appeal, the then Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court decision. established by the Warsaw Convention unless such carriage is not
"international carriage" as defined by that Convention.
Hence, the instant recourse to this Court by petitioner.
3. To the extent not in conflict with the foregoing carriage and other services
performed by each carrier are subject to: (i) provisions contained in this
The petition was given due course and the parties, as required, submitted their respective
ticket, (ii) applicable tariffs, (iii) carrier's conditions of carriage and related
memoranda. In due time the case was submitted for decision.
regulations which are made part hereof (and are available on application at
the offices of carrier), except in transportation between a place in the United
In assailing the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court petitioner assigned the following States or Canada and any place outside thereof to which tariffs in force in
errors: those countries apply.

1. The respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the trial court's award of actual xxx xxx xxx
damages beyond the limitation of liability set forth in the Warsaw Convention and the contract
of carriage.
NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS
2. The respondent court erred as a matter of law in affirming the trial court's award of actual
Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited as follows unless a
damages consisting of alleged lost profits in the face of this Court's ruling concerning special
higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid: (1)for
or consequential damages as set forth in Mendoza v. Philippine Airlines [90 Phil. 836 (1952).]
most international travel (including domestic portions of international
journeys) to approximately $9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kilo) for checked
The assigned errors shall be discussed seriatim baggage and $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage: (2) for travel
wholly between U.S. points, to $750 per passenger on most carriers (a few
1. The airline ticket (Exh. "G') contains the following conditions: have lower limits). Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of
valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability for fragile or perishable articles.
NOTICE Further information may be obtained from the carrier. [Emphasis supplied.].

If the passenger's journey involves an ultimate destination or stop in a On the basis of the foregoing stipulations printed at the back of the ticket, petitioner contends
country other than the country of departure the Warsaw Convention may be that its liability for the lost baggage of private respondent Pangan is limited to $600.00
applicable and the Convention governs and in most cases limits the liability of
($20.00 x 30 kilos) as the latter did not declare a higher value for his baggage and pay the the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely prohibited. The
corresponding additional charges. one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he
adheres, he gives his consent,[Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., p.
To support this contention, petitioner cites the case of Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals  [G.R. No. 462, citing Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, Jan. 31, 1951, p. 49].
L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 223], where the Court sustained the validity of a printed And as held in Randolph v. American Airlines, 103 Ohio App. 172,144 N.E.
stipulation at the back of an airline ticket limiting the liability of the carrier for lost baggage to a 2d 878; Rosenchein v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 349 S.W. 2d 483.] "a
specified amount and ruled that the carrier's liability was limited to said amount since the contract limiting liability upon an agreed valuation does not offend against the
passenger did not declare a higher value, much less pay additional charges. policy of the law forbidding one from contracting against his own negligence."

WON the carriers liability is limited to 600 dollars. YES Considering, therefore, that petitioner had failed to declare a higher value for
his baggage, he cannot be permitted a recovery in excess of P100.00....
We find the ruling in Ong Yiu squarely applicable to the instant case. In said case, the Court,
through Justice Melencio Herrera, stated: On the other hand, the ruling in Shewaram v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. [G.R. No. L-20099,
July 2, 1966, 17 SCRA 606], where the Court held that the stipulation limiting the carrier's
liability to a specified amount was invalid, finds no application in the instant case, as the ruling
Petitioner further contends that respondent Court committed grave error
in said case was premised on the finding that the conditions printed at the back of the ticket
when it limited PAL's carriage liability to the amount of P100.00 as stipulated
were so small and hard to read that they would not warrant the presumption that the
at the back of the ticket....
passenger was aware of the conditions and that he had freely and fairly agreed thereto. In the
instant case, similar facts that would make the case fall under the exception have not been
We agree with the foregoing finding. The pertinent Condition of Carriage alleged, much less shown to exist.
printed at the back of the plane ticket reads:
In view thereof petitioner's liability for the lost baggage is limited to $20.00 per kilo or $600.00,
8. BAGGAGE LIABILITY ... The total liability of the Carrier as stipulated at the back of the ticket.
for lost or damage baggage of the passenger is LIMITED TO
P100.00 for each ticket unless a passenger declares a
At this juncture, in order to rectify certain misconceptions the Court finds it necessary to state
higher valuation in excess of P100.00, but not in excess,
that the Court of Appeal's reliance on a quotation from Northwest Airlines, Inc. v.
however, of a total valuation of Pl,000.00 and additional
Cuenca [G.R. No. L-22425, August 31, 1965, 14 SCRA 1063] to sustain the view that "to
charges are paid pursuant to Carrier's tariffs.
apply the Warsaw Convention which limits a carrier's liability to US$9.07 per pound or
US$20.00 per kilo in cases of contractual breach of carriage ** is against public policy" is
There is no dispute that petitioner did not declare any higher value for his utterly misplaced, to say the least. In said case, while the Court, as quoted in the Intermediate
luggage, much less (lid he pay any additional transportation charge. Appellate Court's decision, said:

But petitioner argues that there is nothing in the evidence to show that he Petitioner argues that pursuant to those provisions, an air "carrier is liable
had actually entered into a contract with PAL limiting the latter's liability for only" in the event of death of a passenger or injury suffered by him, or of
loss or delay of the baggage of its passengers, and that Article 1750 * of the destruction or loss of, or damages to any checked baggage or any goods, or
Civil Code has not been complied with. of delay in the transportation by air of passengers, baggage or goods. This
pretense is not borne out by the language of said Articles. The same merely
While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane ticket (Exh. declare the carrier liable for damages in enumerated cases, if the conditions
"12"), he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. "Such provisions therein specified are present. Neither said provisions nor others in the
have been held to be a part of the contract of carriage, and valid and binding aforementioned Convention regulate or exclude liability for other breaches of
upon the passenger regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to contract by the carrier. Under petitioner's theory, an air carrier would be
the regulation." [Tannebaum v. National Airline, Inc., 13 Misc. 2d 450,176 exempt from any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in
N.Y.S. 2d 400; Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, 87 Fed. Supp. 691; Migoski v. bad faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd.
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Fla., 63 So. 2d 634.] It is what is known as a contract
of "adhesion," in regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion it prefaced this statement by explaining that:
wherein one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as
 ...The case is now before us on petition for review by certiorari, upon the But before defendant could be held to special damages, such as the present
ground that the lower court has erred: (1) in holding that the Warsaw alleged loss of profits on account of delay or failure of delivery, it must have
Convention of October 12, 1929, relative to transportation by air is not in appeared that he had notice at the time of delivery to him of the particular
force in the Philippines: (2) in not holding that respondent has no cause of circumstances attending the shipment, and which probably would lead to
action; and (3) in awarding P20,000 as nominal damages. such special loss if he defaulted. Or, as the rule has been stated in another
form, in order to purpose on the defaulting party further liability than for
We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the First assignment of error because damages naturally and directly, i.e., in the ordinary course of things, arising
the same is the basis of the second assignment of error, and the latter is from a breach of contract, such unusual or extraordinary damages must have
devoid of merit, even if we assumed the former to be well taken. (Emphasis been brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of
supplied.) breach at the time of or prior to contracting. Generally, notice then of any
special circumstances which will show that the damages to be anticipated
from a breach would be enhanced has been held sufficient for this effect.
Thus, it is quite clear that the Court never intended to, and in fact never did, rule against the
validity of provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Consequently, by no stretch of the
imagination may said quotation from Northwest be considered as supportive of the appellate As may be seen, that New York case is a stronger one than the present case for the reason
court's statement that the provisions of the Warsaw Convention limited a carrier's liability are that the attention of the common carrier in said case was called to the nature of the articles
against public policy. shipped, the purpose of shipment, and the desire to rush the shipment, circumstances and
facts absent in the present case. [Emphasis supplied.]
2. The Court finds itself unable to agree with the decision of the trial court, and affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, awarding private respondents damages as and for lost profits when Thus, applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, in the absence of a
their contracts to show the films in Guam and San Francisco, California were cancelled. showing that petitioner's attention was called to the special circumstances requiring prompt
delivery of private respondent Pangan's luggages, petitioner cannot be held liable for the
cancellation of private respondents' contracts as it could not have foreseen such an
The rule laid down in Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. [90 Phil. 836 (1952)] cannot be
eventuality when it accepted the luggages for transit.
any clearer:

The Court is unable to uphold the Intermediate Appellate Court's disregard of the rule laid
...Under Art.1107 of the Civil Code, a debtor in good faith like the defendant
down in Mendoza and affirmance of the trial court's conclusion that petitioner is liable for
herein, may be held liable only for damages that were foreseen or might
damages based on the finding that "[tlhe undisputed fact is that the contracts of the plaintiffs
have been foreseen at the time the contract of transportation was entered
for the exhibition of the films in Guam and California were cancelled because of the loss of
into. The trial court correctly found that the defendant company could not
the two luggages in question." [Rollo, p. 36] The evidence reveals that the proximate cause of
have foreseen the damages that would be suffered by Mendoza upon failure
the cancellation of the contracts was private respondent Pangan's failure to deliver the
to deliver the can of film  on the 17th of September, 1948 for the reason that
promotional and advertising materials on the dates agreed upon. For this petitioner cannot be
the plans of Mendoza to exhibit that film during the town fiesta and his
held liable. Private respondent Pangan had not declared the value of the two luggages he
preparations, specially the announcement of said exhibition by posters and
had checked in and paid additional charges. Neither was petitioner privy to respondents'
advertisement in the newspaper, were not called to the defendant's attention.
contracts nor was its attention called to the condition therein requiring delivery of the
promotional and advertising materials on or before a certain date.
In our research for authorities we have found a case very similar to the one under
consideration. In the case of Chapman vs. Fargo, L.R.A. (1918 F) p. 1049, the plaintiff in
3. With the Court's holding that petitioner's liability is limited to the amount stated in the ticket,
Troy, New York, delivered motion picture films to the defendant Fargo, an express company,
the award of attorney's fees, which is grounded on the alleged unjustified refusal of petitioner
consigned and to be delivered to him in Utica. At the time of shipment the attention of the
to satisfy private respondent's just and valid claim, loses support and must be set aside.
express company was called to the fact that the shipment involved motion picture films to be
exhibited in Utica, and that they should be sent to their destination, rush. There was delay in
their delivery and it was found that the plaintiff because of his failure to exhibit the film in Utica WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the Decision of the Intermediate
due to the delay suffered damages or loss of profits. But the highest court in the State of New Appellate Court is SET ASIDE and a new judgment is rendered ordering petitioner to pay
York refused to award him special damages. Said appellate court observed: private respondents damages in the amount of US $600.00 or its equivalent in Philippine
currency at the time of actual payment.
SO ORDERED. According to the herein petitioner Alitalia, boarding time was 9:30 o'clock in the morning for
Flight AZ 1774. The check-in counter was then closed and all confirmed passengers who
G.R. No. 77011 July 24, 1990 failed to check-in before that time were marked as NO SHOW in the airline manifest as in the
case of the Julianos. 3 Thereafter, chance passengers, or those without confirmed
reservations, were allowed to board.
ALITALIA AIRWAYS, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and SPS. JOSE O. JULIANO and VICTORIA On the other hand, the Julianos claim that, having left the hotel right after breakfast at 6:30
JULIANO, respondents. o'clock in the morning, they arrived at the airport at around 9:15 o'clock in the
morning. 4 Notwithstanding this timely arrival at the airport, the Julianos had to contend with a
long queue for the check-in because there were no individual counters specifically for Alitalia
Jose S. Songco and Santiago & Santiago for petitioner.
passengers. 5
Christina J. Corral for private respondents.
Realizing that it was already close to boarding time, the Julianos, armed with confirmed
tickets, decided to approach the check-in counter. 6

At the counter, a lady employee only brushed them aside and ordered them to fall in line,
SARMIENTO,  J.: which they did. 7

This petition for review on certiorari of the decision rendered by the respondent court in AC- At any rate, they were getting restless because the lines were no longer moving, so they
G.R. CV No. 05340 entitled "Sps. Jose O. Juliano and Victoria G. Juliano v. Alitalia decided to call the attention of the airline authorities. 8
Airways," promulgated on April 11, 1986, and the resolution of the same court dated January
6, 1987, denying the motion for reconsideration, is brought to the Court allegedly on pure
To make matters worse, the herein petitioner allegedly began to discriminate. The Julianos
questions of law.' 1
noticed that despite the fact that their line was not moving, some of the passengers were
being escorted ahead of the line in order to be checked-in. 9
The facts from which the case now on review arose have a familiar ring and thus this Court
will echo a similar conclusion decreed in jurisprudence.
For the second time, the Julianos approached the lady at the counter to explain that they
would miss the flight 10 if they were not checked in.
On September 3, 1981, the private' respondents Spouses Jose and Victoria Juliano
(hereinafter referred to as the Julianos), arrived at the Fumicino Airport in Rome, Italy in order
It was then that the Julianos ran into Ms. Chuchi Estanislao, 11 an employee of the University
to board Flight AZ 1774 of Alitalia Airways scheduled to depart at 10:30 a.m. for Hongkong.
of the Philippines Asian Institute of Tourism, who could not also check in, Together with Ms.
Estanislao, they approached the Alitalia employee wearing a uniform with the tag
However, Flight AZ 1774 left Rome without the Julianos. When private respondent Jose O. "supervisor". He only shrugged when shown the confirmed tickets and said that the Julianos
Juliano arrived in Manila, he returned to his employer Bristol-Myers, Inc., of which he was should try to check-in already because it was near departure time. 12
Vice-President for Operations, the unused Rome-Hongkong leg of the Alitalia ticket.
However, the cost of the Thai Airways tickets they had to purchase in lieu of Alitalia was not
On the witness stand during the hearing at the trial court, Anthony Wong, commercial
refunded by his office.
manager of Alitalia Airways at Hong Kong, testified that as a matter of policy Alitalia would not
deny to anyone the opportunity to board the airline. 13 It would be contrary to the profit motive
On December 15, 1981, the Julianos filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of of an airline to fly any plane with vacant seats. In fact, the reason why even chance
Quezon City against the petitioner for damages from the alleged breach of its contractual passengers are admitted is to fill up all the seats not taken because of the number of NO
obligations when the petitioner failed to transport the private respondent to Hongkong on the SHOW (failure to appear) passengers with confirmed tickets. 14
Alitalia Flight AZ 1774. 2
Just the same, an airline could overbook itself precisely to ensure that all seats would be
The cause of the non-boarding of the Julianos makes up the bone of contention in this taken and this is what the lower court found with Alitalia. 15 As a consequence, some of the
controversy. passengers in Rome has to be "bumped off to accommodate the passengers embarking at
the rest of the leg of the trip. In fact more passengers were picked up by the same flight as it 1. The finding of the respondent Court of of Appeals to the effect that by
proceeded to Athens, Bangkok, and then Hongkong. 16 Alitalia's own admission the Julianos arrived for check-in with plenty of time
to spare and should have been allowed to board the plane" was (sic) a gross
Thus, the lower court adjudged Alitalia liable for damages. The airlines appealed from the misapprehension and a quotation out of context of a statement
decision of the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads: made arguendo in petitioner's brief and is contrary to private respondents'
own admissions and other uncontroverted evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court sentences defendant Alitalia
Airways to pay to plaintiff spouses Jose O. Juliano and Victoria G. Juliano the 2. The respondent Court of Appeals' finding that Alitalia's Flight AZ 1774 on
following: September 3, 1981 was overbooked is contrary to all the evidence on record
and is a clear misapprehension of this evidence, if not a deliberate distortion
of the same.
1. U.S. $2,065.00 as actual damages payable in Philippine Currency at the
official rate of exchange at the time of payment;
3. The finding of the respondent Court of Appeals that the tickets of private
respondents are endorsable is not supported by any evidence and is contrary
2. P400,000.00 as moral damages;
to private respondents' own admission, the finding of the trial court and other
evidence on record.
3. P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, Costs. 17
4. The respondent Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
This decision was motu proprio amended by the trial court on September 19, 1984 to include facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
5. There is no factual or legal basis for the award of moral and exemplary
Both parties appealed. damages and attorney's fees. 22

The respondent Court of Appeals modified the judgment as follows: From a consideration of the foregoing, it is evident that this petition for review raises no
substantial question of law but simply and essentially puts in issue the correctness of the
WHEREFORE, the decision sought to be reconsidered is MODIFIED by factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.

1) reducing the award of moral damages to P200,000.00; For good and sound reasons, the Court has consistently affirmed that review of the findings
of fact of the Court of Appeals is not a function that it ordinarily undertakes such findings
2) reducing the award of exemplary damages to P25,000.00; and being as a nile binding and conclusive. 23 It is true that certain exceptions have become
familiar. However nothing in the records warrants a review based on any of these well-
3) reducing attorney's fees to P 30,000.00, the rest of the decision is recognized exceptions.? 24
maintained.
Thus we re-affirm the ruling laid down by the Court in a long line of cases that when an airline
SO ORDERED.  18 issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of
carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight
and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of
Alitalia assails the decision of the respondent court on the grounds that the trial court had
carriage.
erred in awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages and prays for a reversal. 19 On the
other hand, the Julianos question the award as inadequate as compared with the damages
awarded in the cases of Lopez, et al. v. Pan American World Airways  20 or Ortigas, Jr. v. Accordingly, the respondent court erred in holding that the Julianos are not entitled to a
Lufthansa German Airlines 21 and now pray that they be increased. refund.

As adverted to at the outset, the present petition is alleged to invoke only pure questions of YES
law, to wit:
because the purchase of the Thai Airways tickets was unnecessary. As held in Trans World Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 30 such inattention to and lack of care [by
the petitioner airline] for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost
After they were denied embarkation, the Julianos did not use their Alitalia consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the
tickets but bought passage on Thai Airways International in order to get to passenger to the award of moral damages. Ergo, we affirm the respondent court's award of
where they were going. The question now is: was this necessary? 25 moral damages at P200.000.00. This award should be sufficient to indemnify the Julianos for
the delay, inconvenience, humiliation, and embarrassment they suffered.
xxx xxx xxx
Likewise the award of exemplary damages is well-grounded. With dismay, we note, that the
imposition of substantial amounts of damages notwithstanding, international carriers have not
The purchase of tickets on Thai Airways was by calculated choice, not by
been dissuaded from repeating similar derogatory acts. 31
necessity. This being the case, since the Julianos could have flown Alitalia
just the same there being no compelling necessity anymore for them to fly
the same day, Our conclusion is that they are not entitled to a refund of the Nonetheless, we agree with the injunction expressed by the Court of Appeals that
cost of their Thai tickets. 26 passengers must not prey on international airlines for damage awards, like "trophies in a
safari." After all neither the social standing nor prestige of the passenger should determine
the extent to which he would suffer, because of a wrong done, since the dignity affronted in
Julianos bought Thai tickets because it was necessary.
the individual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by these social indicators. Thus,
as well and aptly put by Justice Serafin Camilon, in his ponencia in this case, the
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
... Propriety of damage awards is judged by their fairness considering all the
the part of the airline without the latter incurring any liability. Besides, why should the Julianos
circumstances. A man's stature is but an accident of life. The role it plays is
be compelled to wait for another Alitalia tight to risk a similar rebuff and suffer the consequent
secondary to the concepts of justice and fair play. 32
further delay?

Nevertheless we have noted the proliferation of similar offenses by international carriers

It was already too much of a coincidence that, at Fumicino Airport, the Julianos would find
finding their way to this Court; we have to advocate a punitive stands to stem, if not totally
another Filipino, in the person of Ms. Estanislao, in the same predicament that they were
eliminate, this deplorable tide. In the discretion of the Court, the award of exemplary damages
in. 27 We will no longer go to the extent of indulging in the conjecture that Ms. Estanislao and
should be increased to P200,000.00. 33
the Julianos were singled out to be discriminated against because of their color. What is plain
to see is that the airline had deliberately overbooked and in doing so took the risk of having to
deprive some passengers of their seats in case all of them would show up for check-in. WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court is MODIFIED in that the petitioner Alitalia
Airways is hereby ordered to pay the private respondents Jose O. Juliano and Victoria G.
Juliano the following amounts:
That Alitalia had no intention to accommodate all who had 'confirmed their flight reservations
could be seen in the absence of any measure to contract all possible passengers for each
flight who might be within the airport premises. 28 As a result, some passengers would really 1) U.S.$2,065.00 as actual damages, payable in Philippine Currency at the official rate of
be left behind in the long and disorderly queue at the check-in counter. exchange at the time of payment;

Common carriers, like commercial airlines, are in the business of rendering service, which is 2) P200,000.00, as and for moral damages;
the primary reason for their recognition in our law. They can not be allowed to disregard our
laws as if they are doing the passengers any favor by accommodating them. 3) P200,000.00, as and for exemplary damages; and

Because the passengers in a contract of carriage do not contract merely for transportation, 4) P30,000.00, as attorney's fees.
they have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy,
and consideration. 29 Hence the justification why passengers must be spared from the Costs against the petitioner.
indignity and inconvenience of being refused a confirmed seat on the last minute.
SO ORDERED.