Title
Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines
Case
G.R. No. L-28773
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1975
A Filipino passenger, downgraded from first to economy class, sued Lufthansa for breach of contract and discrimination. The Supreme Court increased damages, emphasizing fair treatment and deterrence against discriminatory practices.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28773)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Decision date of the appealed judgment: June 30, 1975 (applicable constitution: the 1973 Philippine Constitution). Controlling substantive and procedural authorities referenced in the record and relied upon by the courts include: relevant provisions of the Civil Code on moral and exemplary damages (Articles 2217 and 2220), Sections of the Rules of Court cited in the proceedings (e.g., Rule 22, Sec. 4 regarding continuances for absence of evidence; Rule 132, Sec. 8 regarding cross-examination), International Air Transport Association (IATA) resolutions and the pool agreement between airlines, and controlling precedents cited in the record (e.g., Northwest Airlines v. Cuenca; Lopez v. Pan Am.; Air France v. Carrascoso; Zulueta v. Pan American).

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit December 24, 1963. After pretrial and partial stipulation, trial proceeded intermittently from 1964 through 1966 with numerous settings and many postponements—some at plaintiff’s instance, some jointly agreed, and many at the defendant’s instance. Plaintiff closed evidence and defendant began presenting its case in April 1966. The trial court set continuations and warned defendant regarding repeated postponements. On September 24, 1966, defendant moved to postpone a September 28, 1966 hearing on the asserted ground that material witnesses from Rome would not be available; the trial court denied the motion. On September 28, 1966 the court denied reconsideration of that denial, and on plaintiff’s motion struck from the record the partial testimony of defense witness Ivo Lazzari because cross-examination remained incomplete and the witness was absent; the case was deemed submitted for decision.

Facts Found by the Trial Court

Ortigas held first-class passage for the Rome–Hongkong flight; an Alitalia agent placed a validating sticker on the relevant coupon bearing the notation “O.K.” and flight/seat particulars. At the airport the Lufthansa agent told Ortigas he could not board because his seat would be given to a Belgian, despite prior confirmation and the fact that Ortigas had already checked in and surrendered his baggage. Ortigas was pressured into accepting economy travel under assurances of later transfer to first class at intermediate points; those assurances were not honored at Cairo, Dharham and Calcutta, and were honored only belatedly at Bangkok where Ortigas refused the transfer. Ortigas suffered embarrassment, humiliation and stress, and took nitroglycerin on account of his known heart condition. The court found that Alitalia’s validation bound Lufthansa under the IATA/pool arrangements and that Lufthansa acted in bad faith and willfully breached the contract of carriage; the court also found aggravating facts indicating discrimination and indignity inflicted on a Filipino passenger.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Two principal clusters of appellate issues were litigated and reviewed: (1) defendant’s contention that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by denying its September 24, 1966 motion for postponement, by striking out the unfinished testimony of Ivo Lazzari and by thereby depriving the defendant of its day in court; and (2) both parties’ cross-appeals as to the sufficiency and quantum of damages awarded by the trial court—plaintiff contending the awards were inadequate, defendant contending they were excessive.

Standard Governing Continuances and Court’s Discretion

The court below applied the standards embodied in the Rules of Court: a motion to postpone on the ground of absence of evidence requires an affidavit showing materiality of the evidence and that due diligence has been used to procure it (Rule 22, Sec. 4). The grant or denial of continuances rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably and in view of the parties’ conduct, the needs of expeditious administration of justice, and whether the moving party has shown unavoidable cause and due diligence. The appellate court reviewed the record of repeated postponements and the absence of a timely, specific, and justified showing that defendant had used due diligence to secure its witnesses for the September 28 setting.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling on the Denial of Postponement

The appellate court affirmed denial of the September 24 motion. The court emphasized that the case had been pending for about three years with many postponements—numerous ones at defendant’s instance—and that notice of the September 28 hearing had been provided at least a month earlier. The September 24 motion did not allege specific reasons why the Rome witnesses could not appear; counsel’s September 28 explanation was that she would “inquire and file the explanation” later. The court held that bare assertions, late explanations and the defendant’s failure to demonstrate due diligence or an unavoidable cause did not justify further continuances; an air carrier of Lufthansa’s size and global operation, the court reasoned, should reasonably have been able to manage personnel assignments so as to make its witnesses available. The court found no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling on Striking Out Unfinished Testimony

The appellate court upheld striking the incomplete testimony of Ivo Lazzari. It stressed that oral testimony is admissible only when complete (including the opportunity for full cross-examination by the adverse party), and that where cross-examination is incomplete because of causes attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony becomes incompetent. Given the denial of postponement and the unexplained absence of the witness, the court concluded the trial court properly struck the incomplete testimony; the defendant did not object in a manner that prevented or cured that result. The court also reviewed the existing transcript of the direct testimony and concluded that even on its face the direct testimony was not likely to be persuasive enough to alter liability findings.

Liability for Breach of Contract, Bad Faith and Discrimination

The appellate court affirmed liability. It accepted the trial court’s factual findings that: (a) Alitalia’s validation and the joint IATA/pool arrangement bound Lufthansa to honor the confirmed first-class reservation; (b) Lufthansa’s agents downgraded Ortigas despite confirmation, provided false or misleading assurances of later transfer, and annotated the ticket to indicate he had traveled economy—conduct indicating bad faith; and (c) the downgrade and attendant treatment inflicted humiliation and distress, aggravated by an apparent preference given to a Belgian passenger after reviewing Ortigas’s Filipino passport. The court reiterated precedent establishing that willful or bad-faith refusal to honor confirmed first-class accommodations by a common carrier is culpable and supports awards of moral and exemplary damages.

Right to Cross-Examination and

...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.

About Privacy Terms