GR 109161; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109161 June 21, 1994
SPOUSES VICTOR DE LA SERNA and MARYBELLE DE LA SERNA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR JEREZA, JR., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, spouses Victor and Marybelle de la Serna, entered into contracts of air carriage with Philippine Airlines (PAL) for a Manila to Cebu to Tagbilaran trip on February 23, 1987. They had confirmed bookings for the Cebu-Tagbilaran leg on PR 365 at 4:00 PM. Upon arriving in Cebu at 7:40 AM, they immediately sought to take an earlier connecting flight, PR 363 at 10:30 AM. Despite assurances from a PAL Shift Supervisor, they were not issued boarding passes. PAL Duty Manager Oscar Jereza, Jr. gave conflicting reasons for the denial: overbooking, carry-over passengers from the previous day, and petitioners being way down a chance passenger list where they were not even included. Petitioners attributed this denial to Jereza’s ill feelings stemming from a prior incident on February 15, 1987, where petitioners, initially given free tickets, were denied boarding in Cebu until they presented purchased revenue tickets, leading Victor de la Serna to tear the free tickets. On February 27, 1987, petitioners filed an action for damages. The trial court awarded them P2,000,000 in moral damages, P1,000,000 in exemplary and punitive damages, P13,400 for chartering a private plane, and P100,000 in attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, reducing the damages to a combined total of P100,000 for moral, exemplary, and punitive damages, P20,000 in attorney’s fees, and P2,400 for the chartered plane. Petitioners sought review, questioning the reduced awards as inadequate.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals’ reduction of the damages awarded to the petitioners is in accordance with jurisprudence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition raised no substantial questions of law but merely put in issue the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are generally binding and conclusive. The reduced award of moral damages was deemed reasonably sufficient to indemnify the petitioners for the delay, inconvenience, humiliation, and embarrassment suffered, and to serve as an example. The purpose of moral damages is indemnity or reparation, not punishment or enrichment; they must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted to restore, within limits, the spiritual status quo ante.