0% found this document useful (0 votes)
76 views1 page

Korean Airlines Vs CA

1. Juanito Lapuz was barred from boarding his flight from Korean Airlines despite being checked-in as passenger number 157. He was unable to start his job in Saudi Arabia on time and lost his employment. 2. The trial court found Korean Airlines liable for damages but the Court of Appeals reduced the actual damages. 3. The issue is whether legal interest on the damages owed to Lapuz should accrue from the date of filing the complaint or the date of the trial court's decision.

Uploaded by

Carol Terrado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
76 views1 page

Korean Airlines Vs CA

1. Juanito Lapuz was barred from boarding his flight from Korean Airlines despite being checked-in as passenger number 157. He was unable to start his job in Saudi Arabia on time and lost his employment. 2. The trial court found Korean Airlines liable for damages but the Court of Appeals reduced the actual damages. 3. The issue is whether legal interest on the damages owed to Lapuz should accrue from the date of filing the complaint or the date of the trial court's decision.

Uploaded by

Carol Terrado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Korean Airlines vs CA

Facts: Juanito C. Lapuz, an automotive electrician, was contracted for employment is Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia, for a period of one year through Pan Paci c Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc.
Lapuz was supposed to leave on November 8, 1980, via Korean Airlines. Initially, he was
"waitlisted," which meant that he could only be accommodated if any of the con rmed
passengers failed to show up at the airport before departure. When two of such passengers
did not appear, Lapuz and another person by the name of Perico were given the two unclaimed
seats.

Lapuz was allowed to check in with one suitcase and one shoulder bag at the check-in
counter of KAL. He passed through the customs and immigration sections for routine check-up
and was cleared for departure as Passenger No. 157 of KAL Flight No. KE 903. Together with
the other passengers, he rode in the shuttle bus and proceeded to the ramp of the KAL aircraft
for boarding. However, when he was at the third or fourth rung of the stairs, a KAL o cer
pointed to him and shouted "Down! Down!" He was thus barred from taking the ight. When he
later asked for another booking, his ticket was canceled by KAL. Consequently, he was unable
to report for his work in Saudi Arabia within the stipulated 2-week period and so lost his
employment.

Pan Paci c Recruiting Services Inc. coordinated with KAL for the departure of 30
contract workers, of whom only 21 were con rmed and 9 were wait-listed passengers. The
agent of Pan Paci c, Jimmie Joseph, after being informed that there was a possibility of having
one or two seats becoming available, gave priority to Perico, who was one of the supervisors
of the hiring company in Saudi Arabia. The other seat was won through lottery by Lapuz.
However, only one seat became available and so, pursuant to the earlier agreement that Perico
was to be given priority, he alone was allowed to board.

RTC: adjudged KAL liable for damages

1. 272,160.00 as actual/compensatory damages, will legal interest thereon from the date of the
ling of the complaint until fully paid.

2. P25,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and

3. The costs of suit.

case is dismissed with respect to Pan Paci c Overseas Recruiting Services, Inc.

counterclaims and cross-claim of KAL are likewise dismissed.

CA: actual damages and compensatory damages is reduced to P60,000.00

KAL is hereby ordered to pay LAPUZ the sum of P100,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary
damages, at 6% interest per annum from the date of ling of the Complaint until fully paid.

Issue: whether the LEGAL INTEREST ADJUDGED IN FAVOR OF Lapuz ACCRUES FROM THE
DATE OF ling of the complaint until fully paid?

Ruling: no, it is not.

the legal interest of six percent (6%) on the amounts adjudged in favor of Lapuz should
resume from the time of rendition of the trial court's decision instead of November 28, 1980,
the date of the ling of the complaint.

If suit were for payment of a de nite sum of money, the contention might be tenable.
However, if it is for damages, unliquidated and not known until de nitely ascertained, assessed
and determined by the courts after proof, interest should be from the date of the decision.

The obligation to pay interest on a sum of led in a judgment exists from the date of the
sentence, when so declared; for until the net amount of the debtor's liability has been
determined, he cannot he considered delinquent in the ful llment of his obligation to pay the
debt with interest thereon.
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
ffi

You might also like