GR 150843; (March, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150843; March 14, 2003
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner, vs. SPOUSES DANIEL VAZQUEZ and MARIA LUISA MADRIGAL VAZQUEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, Cathay Pacific Gold Card members, were booked on a Business Class flight from Hong Kong to Manila. During check-in at the gate, a ground attendant informed them that their seats had been involuntarily upgraded to First Class due to overbooking in Business Class, a privilege for frequent flyers. Dr. Vazquez refused the upgrade, insisting it was inappropriate to be separated from their companions traveling in Business Class. The attendant, after consulting a supervisor, informed the spouses that if they did not accept the upgrade, they would not be allowed to board the flight. Feeling compelled, the Vazquezes reluctantly accepted the First Class seats.
Upon returning to Manila, the spouses demanded an apology and indemnity for alleged humiliation. After Cathay failed to meet their demands, they filed a complaint for damages. They alleged the attendant was discourteous, caused them public embarrassment, and that Dr. Vazquez aggravated a pre-existing wrist condition while stowing luggage without assistance. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Vazquezes, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but reduced the amounts.
ISSUE
Whether an involuntary upgrade of an airline passenger’s accommodation constitutes a breach of contract of carriage entitling the passenger to damages.
RULING
No, an involuntary upgrade is not a breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled that a contract of carriage requires the carrier to transport the passenger safely and comfortably to their destination, which Cathay fulfilled. An upgrade to superior accommodation at no extra cost does not diminish this obligation; it enhances the service. The right to refuse such an upgrade is not an inherent component of the contract. The attendant’s statement that the Vazquezes could not board if they refused the upgrade was a factual explanation of the overbooking situation, not a threat constituting bad faith.
The Court found no factual basis for the award of moral damages, as the alleged discourtesy and humiliation were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The claim regarding the aggravation of Dr. Vazquez’s medical condition was also unsupported. However, the Court awarded nominal damages in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) to recognize a technical violation of the spouses’ right to choose their seats, even if it caused no substantial injury. The awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees were deleted.