G.R. No. 221590 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Asalus Corp.

On March 27, 1992, respondents Michael and Jeanette Asuncion departed from Manila aboard Japan Airlines (JAL) Flight 742, bound for Los Angeles with a scheduled stop-over in Narita.
Their itinerary required an overnight stay at Hotel Nikko Narita, a fact known to the parties based on travel documents and announcements.
Upon arrival in Narita, a JAL employee – Mrs. Noriko Etou-Higuchi – endorsed their applications for a shore pass and directed them to the Japanese immigration official.

A shore pass is mandated for foreigners on board, permitting a stay in the vicinity of the port for not more than 72 hours.
During the immigration interview, the Japanese immigration official observed that Michael’s height appeared inconsistent with the passport details.
This discrepancy led to the denial of the shore pass entries.
Consequently, respondents were taken to the Narita Airport Rest House rather than being allowed the originally intended accommodation at Hotel Nikko Narita.
Respondents were charged US$400.00 each for accommodations, security services, and meals during their enforced overnight stay.

On December 12, 1992, respondents filed a complaint for damages against JAL.
The complaint alleged that JAL failed to fully apprise them of their travel requirements and that they were subjected to rude and forcible detention.
JAL countered by asserting that the denial of shore pass was solely an act of the Japanese immigration authorities – a sovereign function outside its control.

The Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 61) in Civil Case No. 92-3635 decided in favor of respondents on June 10, 1997.
The trial court ordered JAL to pay:

JAL’s counterclaim for litigation expenses, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees was dismissed.

On October 9, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in its entirety.
The denial of a subsequent motion for reconsideration led JAL to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Passengers holding confirmed seats are responsible for securing shore passes.
JAL’s role was limited to endorsing the application without providing a written copy of the procedure.

She was not allowed to intervene during the immigration interview.
Upon notification of the denial, she promptly secured accommodations at the Narita Airport Rest House.

Evidence showed that respondents were aware of the requirement to secure shore passes, and any misunderstanding was addressed during the cross-examinations.

Failing to adequately inform the respondents of the shore pass requirements.
Not doing more to prevent the denial of shore pass applications by the Japanese immigration authorities.

Whether the non-issuance of shore passes, and the subsequent detention in the Narita Airport Rest House, constitutes a breach of the duty of care incumbent upon a common carrier.

Whether JAL’s duty to inspect passengers’ travel documents extended to verifying the authenticity and correctness of the details therein.
Whether JAL could be held liable for the sovereign act of the Japanese immigration authorities in denying shore passes.
Whether the airline had any obligation, beyond endorsement, to influence or intervene with the immigration process.

Whether respondents were entitled to recover actual, moral, and exemplary damages based on an alleged breach of contract.
Whether JAL's conduct constituted wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or malevolent behavior warranting such damages.
Whether the US$800.00 charge, which was paid to the International Service Center (ISC), should be reimbursed by JAL.