Title
Armovit vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 88561
Decision Date
Apr 20, 1990
Passengers denied boarding due to airline's gross negligence in ticket error, awarded moral, exemplary, and actual damages by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91332)

Facts of the Case

In October 1981, the petitioners purchased three round-trip airline tickets from Northwest Airlines, Inc. for travel from the U.S. to Manila and back. Each ticket was handwritten by the airline’s sales agent, indicating a departure time of 10:30 A.M. on January 17, 1982, for their return flight. The petitioners arrived at the airport at 9:15 A.M., 75 minutes ahead of the scheduled departure, but were informed that there was no available accommodation on the flight as it had already taken off at 9:15 A.M., indicating an erroneous entry in their tickets. They had previously confirmed their reservations, and their names were included in the passenger manifest for Flight 002.

Legal Proceedings and Initial Judgment

Due to the distress caused by being bumped off their flight, the petitioners filed for damages against the airline in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The trial court ruled in their favor on July 2, 1985, awarding actual, moral, exemplary, and nominal damages, totaling substantial amounts, alongside attorney's fees.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Decision

The private respondent appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which rendered its judgment on June 20, 1989. The appellate court found the petitioners had complied with the "72-hour reconfirmation rule" and affirmed the trial court's finding of gross negligence by the airline. However, it significantly reduced the moral damages and provided reasoning that the petitioners had not taken the witness stand to provide personal testimony regarding their suffering, which could impact the damages awarded.

Supreme Court Interpretation

The matter was further elevated to the Supreme Court through legal petitions from both respondents and petitioners. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the appellate court’s rationale for denying moral damages and acknowledged precedents whereby damages could be awarded for gross negligence that amounted to malice or bad faith, irrespective of the absence of direct testimony from the affected parties.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court concl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.