G.R. No. L-67742 - Gallardo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest) is the petitioner, and Steven P. Chiong is the respondent.
Chiong, hired as Third Engineer for TransOcean’s vessel M/V Elbia through Philimare Shipping and Seagull Maritime Corporation, entered into a service crew agreement guaranteeing him a monthly salary and overtime, amounting to US$7,920.00 for one year.
The underlying contract of carriage imposed upon Northwest the obligation to transport Chiong as agreed.

On March 14, 1989, Philimare, acting as the authorized Philippine agent for TransOcean, engaged Chiong under a crew agreement.
Philimare sent a Letter of Guarantee on March 27, 1989, to CL Hutchins & Co., Inc. at the San Diego Port confirming Chiong’s timely arrival to board M/V Elbia.
For his travel, Philimare purchased a plane ticket from Northwest for a flight departing Manila on April 1, 1989.
Chiong, accompanied by his family who were flown in from Samar, arrived at Manila International Airport (MIA) at approximately 6:30 a.m.—three hours prior to the scheduled departure.

At the airport, Chiong first proceeded to the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) counter where his passport was stamped after complying with departure requirements.
At the Northwest check-in counter, he was informed that his name did not appear in the confirmed passenger list.
Directed to an attendant (referred to as an “aman in barong”), Chiong was asked to pay US$100.00 in exchange for a boarding pass.
Despite repeated attempts and intervention by Marilyn Calvo, Philimare’s liaison officer—who affirmed his ticket was confirmed—Chiong was never issued a boarding pass.
The flight manifest eventually revealed that Chiong’s name had been crossed out and replaced by that of an American passenger, W. Costine.

On April 1, 1989, because he was barred from boarding Northwest Flight No. 24, Chiong could not report for duty aboard M/V Elbia as per the crew agreement.
Chiong’s counsel filed a complaint on May 24, 1989, alleging breach of contract of carriage and demanding damages for lost income, expenses incurred in fetching his family, moral damages, and legal fees.
Northwest responded with a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and maintained that Chiong was a “no-show” passenger, claiming that his absence was voluntary and that he departed later for his work assignment.
Additional evidentiary issues arose when, in a separate criminal complaint for False Testimony based on discrepancies in Chiong’s seaman service record, Northwest sought to undermine his credibility.

Chiong adduced his Northwest flight ticket, the stamped passport and seaman service record (with confirmation from the PCG), and testimonies from airport personnel including Marilyn Calvo and others.
The flight manifest, which displayed a horizontal line crossing out Chiong’s name and substituting it with W. Costine’s name, was a critical piece of evidence.
Northwest’s defense largely relied on evidence purporting that Chiong was a “no-show” and disputed his claim that he was scheduled to depart on April 1, 1989, alleging instead that he left on April 17, 1989.

Whether Northwest breached its contract of carriage with Chiong by preventing him from boarding Northwest Flight No. 24 on April 1, 1989.

Did Northwest’s conduct at the check-in counter and subsequent alterations in the flight manifest amount to a breach of the agreed services?

Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that Chiong was present at the Manila International Airport and that his confirmed ticket was not honored by Northwest.

Can Chiong’s documentary evidence (ticket, PCG stamps, and testimonies) override Northwest’s contention that he was a “no-show” passenger?

Whether Northwest’s belatedly asserted defense—that Chiong departed on April 17, 1989, and worked on board M/V Elbia—was properly raised, or if it was waived by failing to present timely evidence.

How does the failure to timely raise this defense affect the burden of proof and the overall adjudication of the breach?

Whether the exclusion of certain evidentiary exhibits (Exhibits A2a and A3a) as hearsay is proper under the applicable rules of evidence.

What impact does the hearsay determination have on the credibility of Northwest’s evidence versus the direct evidence presented by Chiong?