Case Digest (G.R. No. 200553)
Facts:
Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court; Teofista P. Tinitigan, joined by her husband, Severino Tinitigan, G.R. No. 74442, August 31, 1987, First Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Teofista P. Tinitigan (plaintiff/appellee/respondent) sued Pan American World Airways, Inc. (defendant/appellant/petitioner) for damages allegedly resulting from Pan Am’s refusal to accommodate her on Flight No. 431 from Santo Domingo to San Juan on April 29, 1973, despite her possession of a ticket and related travel documents. She claimed actual damages of US$1,546.15, moral damages of P500,000, exemplary damages of P200,000, and attorney’s fees of P100,000.
Chronologically, plaintiff was on a business trip and, while in Santo Domingo, obtained from Pan Am a new ticket (Exh. D), a baggage claim (Exh. A), a boarding pass (Exh. B) and an assigned seat 3‑A (Exh. B‑1); her passport was stamped by immigration (Exhs. C, C‑1). At the boarding line a Pan Am employee allegedly ordered her out, informing her the ticket was unconfirmed; she watched her seat given to a white man, was prevented from boarding, and her luggage was taken aboard. She later received an apology letter and a refund check from Pan Am’s San Francisco manager (Exhs. G, H) and reclaimed her baggage five days later.
At trial, the lower court (Judge Enrique A. Agana, Sr.) found for plaintiff and awarded the pleaded amounts. Pan Am appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which affirmed the trial court but modified the award by ordering the US$1,546.15 to be valued at the present exchange rate. Pan Am then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court to review the IAC judgment by certiorari, essentially reasserting factual and evidentiary challenges (that plaintiff was only a standby/open passenger, that the boarding pass/immigration clearance did not make her a confirmed passenger, that there was no proof her seat or luggage were taken, and that damages claimed lacked evidentiary support).
The Supreme Court summarized the evidence: plaintiff’s testimony and documents vs. Pan Am’s documentary evidence including manifest and depositions (Exhs. 1–12). Both the trial court and the IAC credited plaintiff’s evidence (boarding pass, baggage check, manifest entry and immigration clearance), concluding a contract of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was private respondent Teofista P. Tinitigan a confirmed passenger on Pan Am Flight 431 on April 29, 1973?
- Did Pan Am breach the contract of carriage and is it liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees?
- If liable, are the amounts awarded by the lower courts excessive and what qu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)