Case Digest (G.R. No. 161722)
Facts:
In KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, petitioner, vs. Dr. Jose M. Tiongco, respondent (G.R. No. 212136, October 4, 2021), Dr. Tiongco, a celebrated surgeon from Davao City, was invited by the UN–WHO to speak in Almaty, Kazakhstan on November 27–28, 1998. He purchased through‐ticketed air passage with KLM as the principal carrier, connecting via Singapore, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt. On November 25, 1998, he checked in a suitcase containing his speech, resource materials, and attire at Manila airport with Singapore Airlines. After arriving in Singapore and boarding KLM KL838 to Amsterdam, he missed his KLM KL1765 connection to Frankfurt when it departed forty‐five minutes late. Upon landing in Frankfurt, KLM personnel rebooked him via Lufthansa to Istanbul and Turkish Airlines to Almaty, assuring him his luggage would follow. At Istanbul, however, his suitcase never appeared; Turkish Airlines boarded him without it, promising delivery on the next flight. In Almaty, he arrived in inappropriaCase Digest (G.R. No. 161722)
Facts:
- Engagement and travel arrangements
- Dr. Jose M. Tiongco, a prominent surgeon in Davao City, was invited by the UN–WHO as keynote speaker for the 20th Anniversary of the Alma-Ata Declaration in Almaty, Kazakhstan (Nov. 27–28, 1998).
- He secured a Kazakhstan visa and purchased a multi-leg ticket (Manila–Singapore–Amsterdam–Frankfurt–Almaty).
- Itinerary and check-in
- Manila to Singapore (SQ 75, Nov. 25 1998): Dr. Tiongco checked in one suitcase containing his speech, resource materials, and clothes.
- Singapore to Amsterdam (KL 838, Nov. 25 1998) and Amsterdam to Frankfurt (KL 1765, Nov. 26 1998): the first segment was on time; the second departed 45 minutes late, causing him to miss Frankfurt–Almaty (LH 3346).
- Rebooking and lost luggage
- In Frankfurt, a KLM employee rebooked him on Frankfurt–Istanbul (LH 3454) and Istanbul–Almaty (TK 1350) and assured him his checked suitcase would follow.
- At Istanbul, Turkish Airlines personnel asked passengers to identify luggage; Dr. Tiongco’s suitcase was missing. He was told to board without it and that it would be forwarded on the next flight.
- Arrival without suitcase and immediate consequences
- Upon arrival in Almaty, no airline personnel assisted him; suitcase still missing.
- At the conference hotel, he lacked proper attire and visual aids; entry was initially denied until he explained the lost luggage. He delivered his speech but had no materials to distribute.
- Post-incident correspondence and complaint
- Dr. Tiongco wrote demand letters (Mar. 15, 1999) to Singapore Airlines, KLM, and Lufthansa. Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa denied liability; KLM did not respond.
- On Aug. 5, 1999, he filed a Complaint for Damages and Attorney’s Fees against all carriers; answers were filed denying liability and invoking Warsaw Convention limits.
- Trial court proceedings
- The RTC dropped Turkish Airlines as a defendant and admitted an amended complaint (Sept. 3, 2001).
- On Jan. 16, 2006, the RTC held KLM solely liable for breach of contract of carriage, finding it failed to exercise “extraordinary diligence” and to timely inquire about the missing suitcase. It awarded:
- Nominal damages: P3,000,000
- Moral damages: P3,000,000
- Exemplary damages: P5,000,000
- Attorney’s fees: P1,600,000
- KLM’s motion for reconsideration was denied (May 30, 2006), prompting its appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- Court of Appeals ruling
- On Apr. 10, 2013, the CA affirmed KLM’s liability but reduced damages to:
- Moral damages: P1,000,000
- Exemplary damages: P300,000
- Nominal damages: P50,000
- Attorney’s fees: 20% of the total award
- Interest: 6% p.a. from Jan. 16, 2006; then 12% p.a. from finality
- KLM’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Mar. 27, 2014), leading to this SC petition.
- Petition for review
- KLM argued (a) no gross negligence or bad faith warranted moral/exemplary damages; (b) CA ignored RTC’s omission of reasons for attorney’s fees; (c) awards are excessive; (d) interest unwarranted; (e) Alitalia mandates only nominal damages.
- SC found petition raises factual issues beyond Rule 45 and lacked any recognized exception.
Issues:
- Did KLM’s actions involve gross negligence, bad faith, or willful misconduct justifying moral and exemplary damages?
- Did the CA err by not addressing the RTC’s rationale (or lack thereof) for awarding attorney’s fees?
- Are the amounts of moral, exemplary, nominal/temperate damages and interest excessive, unconscionable, or unsupported?
- Is Alitalia v. Intermediate Appellate Court applicable to limit recovery to nominal damages?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)