G.R. No. 118664 August 7, 1998
JAPAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE AGANA, MARIA ANGELA NINA AGANA, ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and JOSE MIRANDA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents purchased tickets from petitioner Japan Airlines (JAL) for flights from the United States to Manila, with a scheduled overnight stopover in Narita, Japan at JAL’s expense. On June 14, 1991, they arrived in Narita. Their connecting flight to Manila on June 15 was cancelled due to the closure of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, a fortuitous event. JAL paid for their hotel accommodation for the unexpected overnight stay on June 15 and rebooked them for a flight on June 16. When the June 16 flight was also cancelled, JAL informed them it would no longer pay for their subsequent hotel and meal expenses. Private respondents were stranded in Narita until June 22, 1991, personally paying for their accommodations and meals from June 16 to 21. They filed an action for damages against JAL, claiming it failed in its duty to provide care and comfort. The trial court ruled in their favor, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification by reducing the damages. JAL appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether JAL, as a common carrier, has the obligation to shoulder the hotel and meal expenses of its stranded passengers until they reach their final destination when the delay is caused by force majeure.

RULING

No. A common carrier is not liable for damages arising from a fortuitous event. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the consequent closure of NAIA constituted a fortuitous event that prevented JAL from performing its obligation. Therefore, JAL could not be held liable for the hotel and meal expenses incurred by the stranded passengers during the delay. The defense of force majeure is valid, and common carriers are not insurers of all risks. However, the Supreme Court found that JAL reneged on its separate obligation to make necessary arrangements to transport the passengers on the first available flight to Manila after the fortuitous event. JAL declassified them from “transit passengers” to “new passengers,” forcing them to make their own arrangements and wait at the airport. For this violation of their right to be transported, the Court awarded nominal damages. The decision of the Court of Appeals was MODIFIED. The awards of actual, moral, and exemplary damages were DELETED. JAL was ordered to pay each private respondent nominal damages of P100,000.00 and attorney’s fees of P50,000.00 plus costs.