Case Summary (G.R. No. 82619)
Procedural History
Private respondent filed a complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage in the Court of First Instance (Misamis Occidental). The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff awarding actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) affirmed the trial court’s decision. PAL petitioned to the Supreme Court by review on certiorari.
Core Facts
On 2 August 1976, Flight 477 was diverted to Cotabato about 15 minutes before landing at Ozamiz because the Ozamiz runway was wet from heavy rain. At Cotabato, the station agent informed the diverted passengers of options: (a) return to Cebu on Flight 560 that day (but only six seats were available due to confirmed passengers), (b) take the next flight to Cebu the following day, or (c) remain in Cotabato and take the next available flight to Ozamiz on a later date. Priority for the limited seats on Flight 560 was to be based on check-in sequence at Cebu. Zapatos, checked in as passenger No. 9, demanded priority but was not accommodated. He attempted to stop Flight 560 to retrieve his baggage (including a camera to be delivered in Gingoog) but failed. PAL issued him a free ticket to Iligan which he accepted under protest. He was left at the Cotabato airport without PAL-provided transport, food or accommodation, later purchased a ticket to Iligan, travelled by land and water to reach Ozamiz, and his personal effects including a camera valued at P2,000 were not recovered.
PAL’s Plea and Trial Defense
PAL denied unjustified refusal to accommodate Zapatos, asserting (a) only six seats were available and priority rules based on check-in sequence were properly followed; (b) the diversion was due to a fortuitous event (weather/unsafe runway), a valid cause for bypassing Ozamiz; (c) the station agent explained the situation politely and provided options which passengers accepted except Zapatos; and (d) baggage and handcarried items of Ozamiz passengers were removed from the aircraft as necessary.
Trial Court Award
The trial court awarded: actual damages composed of specific expense items (P200 for transportation/food/accommodation, P48 for Cotabato–Iligan fare, P500 for Iligan–Ozamiz transport) and P5,000 for loss of business opportunities; moral damages of P50,000; exemplary damages of P10,000; attorney’s fees of P3,000; and costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding no reversible error.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
PAL raised two principal issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals could find PAL negligent and liable for damages on a question not pleaded or proved at trial; and (2) whether the appellate court could award actual and moral damages contrary to evidence and settled jurisprudence.
Admissibility of Evidence and Issues Tried by Consent
The Supreme Court analyzed the amended complaint and the trial record and found that the amended complaint did in fact allege PAL’s indifference and inattention to the plaintiff’s predicament (quoted allegation of mental anguish due to station agent’s refusal leading to being stranded and exposed to danger). The plaintiff’s testimony described lack of assistance and refusal of transportation by PAL personnel. PAL did not object to this line of questioning at trial; under well-settled rules of evidence, objections must be timely or else the evidence becomes part of the case (citing Arevalo v. Dimayuga; Beam v. Yatco). PAL accordingly cannot now object that negligence or lack of care was not put in issue. Further, issues not raised by pleadings but tried by express or implied consent are treated as if they had been raised in the pleadings (Sec. 5, Rule 10, Rules of Court).
Carrier’s Duty, Fortuitous Event and Continuing Obligation
The Court reiterated the special nature of the contract of carriage and the heightened duties of common carriers: carriers must exercise the utmost diligence and care in carrying passengers, given the public character of their undertaking (citing Art. 1755, case law such as Air France v. Carrascoso). Although the diversion due to inclement weather was a fortuitous event, fortuitous events do not terminate the carrier’s continuing duty to passengers until they have disembarked and left the carrier’s premises. Consequently, PAL remained obliged to exercise extraordinary diligence to safeguard the comfort, convenience and safety of stranded passengers and to provide means to reach their final destination. The Court considered PAL remiss in failing to extend such care, particularly in light of the contemporaneous military conflict in Cotabato and the fact that private respondent was a stranger to the place.
Findings on Notice, Conduct of the Station Agent, and Plaintiff’s Role
However, the Supreme Court concluded there was insufficient basis to find that PAL failed to inform Zapatos about non-accommodation on Flight 560 or that PAL personnel were inattentive or discourteous in the specific respects asserted. The station agent’s report (a business entry) indicated that Zapatos had been vocal and adamant, that agent policies were explained, and that Zapatos thereafter took an in-lieu ticket. That report was prima facie evidence and was not effectively controverted. The Court a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 82619)
Case Citation, Court and Panel
- Reported at 297 Phil. 480, First Division, G.R. No. 82619, decided September 15, 1993.
- Decision penned by Justice Bellosillo, J.
- Concurrence by Cruz (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, Davide, Jr., and Quiason, JJ.
- The Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) decision, affirmed below, was penned by Justice Floreliana Castro-Bartolome (Third Civil Cases Division) and concurred in by Justices Jorge R. Coquia, Mariano A. Zosa and Bienvenido C. Ejercito.
Procedural History
- Private respondent Pedro Zapatos filed a complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage against Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) on 25 November 1976 before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Misamis Occidental, Ozamiz City.
- Trial produced testimony and exhibits; PAL filed an answer denying unjustified refusal to accommodate and pleading force majeure.
- Trial court (Judge Melencio A. Genato) rendered judgment on 4 June 1981 in favor of private respondent, awarding specified actual damages, P50,000 moral damages, P10,000 exemplary damages, P3,000 attorney’s fees and costs.
- PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals; on 28 February 1985 the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the court a quo.
- PAL filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court raising specific issues attacking the appellate ruling and damage awards.
- The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment with modifications to the awards of moral and exemplary damages and deleted the award for alleged business losses; final modifications and disposition set out in the Court’s decision.
Facts — Flight, Diversion and Immediate Aftermath
- On 2 August 1976, PAL Flight 477, routing Cebu–Ozamiz–Cotabato, carried twenty-one (21) passengers including Pedro Zapatos.
- Approximately fifteen (15) minutes before landing at Ozamiz City, the pilot received radio advice that the Ozamiz airport was closed due to heavy rains and inclement weather; the pilot proceeded to Cotabato City.
- Upon arrival at Cotabato, the PAL Station Agent informed diverted passengers of options: return to Cebu on Flight 560 the same day and then to Ozamiz on 4 August 1975; take the next flight to Cebu the following day; or remain in Cotabato and take the next available flight to Ozamiz on 5 August 1975.
- Station Agent explained that Flight 560 bound for Manila would make a stop-over at Cebu to bring some diverted passengers; only six (6) seats were available because there were already confirmed passengers for Manila; priority for those seats would be the check-in sequence at Cebu.
- Private respondent chose to return to Cebu but was check-in passenger No. 9 on Flight 477 and was therefore not accommodated on Flight 560.
- Private respondent insisted on priority over confirmed passengers for the available six seats; the Station Agent refused, explaining that the predicament was attributable to force majeure (inclement weather).
- Private respondent attempted to stop the departure of Flight 560 because his personal belongings, including a package containing a camera to be delivered to Mrs. Fe Obid of Gingoog City, remained aboard; his plea was ignored and he was left behind.
- PAL issued a free ticket to Iligan City to private respondent, which he received under protest.
- Private respondent was left at the Cotabato airport; he could not hitch a ride in a Ford Fiera loaded with PAL personnel; PAL did not provide transportation to the city proper, nor food and accommodation for his stay.
- The following day private respondent purchased a PAL ticket to Iligan City and informed PAL personnel he would not use the free ticket because he planned to file a case.
- In Iligan, private respondent hired a car to Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte, and reached Ozamiz City by crossing the bay in a launch.
- Private respondent’s personal effects, including a camera valued at P2,000.00, were not recovered.
Pleadings — Claims and Defenses
- Private respondent’s complaint: action for damages for breach of contract of carriage, alleging forced stranding at Cotabato and resulting losses, mental anguish, social humiliation and wounded feelings, with specified amounts claimed (including an amended complaint alleging P30,000 for mental anguish and related injuries in paragraph 10).
- PAL’s answer: denied unjustified refusal to accommodate; alleged no available seats on Flight 560 (only six seats), priority based on check-in sequence; first six priority passengers from Flight 477 chose Flight 560; Station Agent acted courteously and explained reasons; stranded passengers accepted options and exchanged tickets; only private respondent insisted; checked baggage and hand-carried items of Ozamiz passengers were removed from aircraft; pilot bypassed Ozamiz because runway was wet and landing would threaten passengers’ and aircraft’s safety — constituting force majeure.
Trial Testimony and Evidentiary Record
- Trial stenographic notes (TSN) of 15 March 1979 recorded private respondent’s testimony recounting his being left at the airport, the sound of guns and soldiers in the vicinity, difficulty obtaining transportation, being questioned while trying to board a private jeep, and an account of the Manager’s response that “it is not my fault. Let us forget that.”
- Private respondent testified he tried to stop Flight 560 and that he was not accommodated on PAL personnel’s vehicle.
- PAL did not object to the introduction of evidence regarding its alleged negligence in caring for stranded passengers; accordingly, such evidence became part of the record.
- PAL attempted to rebut private respondent’s testimony but failed to substantiate its counter-allegations with concrete proof (rebuttal recorded in TSN, 15 March 1979, p. 34).
- Station Agent report dated 3 August (report entry in course of business, Exhibit “7”) stated that of fifteen stranded passengers two chose F478 on August 05, three chose F442 on August 03, and ten including respondent requested accommodation on F446 (CBO-IGN) the following day; report described respondent as “very vocal and boiceterous (sic)” and stated he took his ticket in the presence of other passengers.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Issue 1: Whether the Court of Appeals could render a decision finding PAL negligent and liable for damages on a question of substance that was neit