GR 213418; (September, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213418 . September 21, 2016
ALFREDO S. RAMOS, CONCHITA S. RAMOS, BENJAMIN B. RAMOS, NELSON T. RAMOS AND ROBINSON T. RAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CO. LTD., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioners purchased confirmed roundtrip tickets from Manila to Xiamen via respondent China Southern Airlines. Their return flight was scheduled for August 12, 2003. On the day of departure, an agent from their travel agency informed them their bookings were confirmed. At the Xiamen airport, they checked in their luggage, paid terminal fees, and received claim stubs. However, the airline’s ground staff prevented them from boarding, stating they were merely “chance passengers” and demanding an additional payment of 500 RMB per person to board. Upon refusal, their luggage was offloaded and the flight departed without them.
Due to urgent business commitments in Manila, petitioners were compelled to undertake an arduous alternative journey by rented car and train to Hong Kong, where they purchased new Philippine Airlines tickets to finally return home. They demanded reimbursement from the airline, which was refused, prompting the filing of a complaint for damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of actual damages but deleted the moral and exemplary damages, finding no bad faith on the part of the airline.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the awards for moral and exemplary damages. The legal logic centers on the nature of the contract of air carriage and the degree of breach involved. A contract of carriage imposes upon the airline a duty to transport passengers safely and comfortably to their destination, and a breach thereof gives rise to liability for damages. The Court distinguished between ordinary breach and breach attended by bad faith or gross negligence.
The airline’s defense—that petitioners failed to reconfirm their bookings as allegedly required—was unavailing. The Court found that the airline’s own actions constituted gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Petitioners were allowed to check in their luggage and were issued boarding passes, acts which unequivocally confirmed their status as passengers, not mere “chance” travelers. The subsequent arbitrary offloading and demand for extra payment, after they had fulfilled all customary pre-departure procedures, constituted a willful and malevolent disregard of their contractual rights. This treatment caused petitioners not merely financial loss but also physical inconvenience, mental anguish, and serious anxiety.
Consequently, the breach was not simple. Gross negligence, which is the want of even slight care, amounts to bad faith that warrants the imposition of moral damages for the resulting mental suffering. Furthermore, exemplary damages are proper to set a public example and deter other carriers from similar deplorable conduct. The awards of P300,000.00 each for moral and exemplary damages were deemed reasonable and proportionate. The Court also imposed legal interest on the actual damages from the date of extrajudicial demand.