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.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. 88561)

Breach of Contract and Duty of Care

  • The relationship between an air carrier and its passengers is characterized by a public duty, which imposes a higher standard of care than typical contractual relationships.
  • Passengers are entitled to be treated with kindness, respect, and courtesy, and any misconduct by airline employees can lead to claims for damages.
  • The airline's gross negligence in issuing tickets with incorrect flight times and the rude manner in which the petitioners were informed of their bump-off constitutes a breach of contract, justifying the award of moral damages.

Justification for Witness Testimony

  • The appellate court noted the petitioners did not testify regarding their social humiliation and anxiety, which was a point of contention.
  • However, the petitioners provided a valid explanation for their absence, citing political turmoil in the Philippines following the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.
  • Atty. Raymund Armovit, a witness present during the incident, provided sufficient testimony to establish the emotional distress suffered by the petitioners.

Initial Ruling and Appeal Process

  • The Regional Trial Court awarded various damages to the petitioners, including actual, moral, exemplary, and nominal damages, totaling significant amounts.
  • The private respondent appealed the decision, leading to a modification of the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, which eliminated moral damages and reduced exemplary damages.

Supreme Court's Review and Findings

  • The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners' claims, particularly regarding the gross negligence of the airline.
  • The Court emphasized that the breach of contract was indeed malicious and tainted by bad faith, warranting the award of moral damages.
  • The Court disagreed with the appellate court's reasoning for denying moral damages based on the petitioners' failure to testify, citing precedents that support the awarding of damages in cases of...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.