G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO ZAPATOS, respondents.

FACTS

On August 2, 1976, Pedro Zapatos was a passenger on Philippine Airlines (PAL) Flight 477 from Cebu to Ozamiz City. Due to heavy rains and inclement weather, the Ozamiz airport was closed, forcing the pilot to divert the flight to Cotabato City. Upon arrival, the PAL Station Agent informed the diverted passengers of their options: return to Cebu on Flight 560 that same day (with only six available seats, prioritized based on check-in sequence from Cebu), take the next flight to Cebu the following day, or wait in Cotabato for the next available flight to Ozamiz on August 5. Zapatos, who checked in as passenger No. 9, chose to return to Cebu but was not accommodated on Flight 560 as only the first six priority passengers were taken. He insisted on priority over confirmed passengers but was refused, with PAL citing force majeure. Zapatos tried to stop Flight 560’s departure as his personal belongings, including a camera valued at P2,000.00, were on board, but was unsuccessful. PAL issued him a free ticket to Iligan City, which he received under protest. PAL did not provide him transportation from the airport to Cotabato City proper, nor food and accommodation. The following day, Zapatos purchased a ticket to Iligan, informing PAL he would not use the free ticket as he intended to file a case. From Iligan, he hired a car to Kolambugan and then took a launch to Ozamiz City. His personal effects were not recovered. Zapatos filed a complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage. The trial court ruled in his favor, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. PAL elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding PAL negligent and liable for damages on an issue allegedly not raised in the pleadings or proved at trial.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding actual and moral damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION.
1. The issue of PAL’s negligence was properly considered. Zapatos’ amended complaint alleged PAL’s indifference and inattention to his predicament. Furthermore, evidence on PAL’s alleged negligence was presented during trial without objection from PAL. Under the Rules of Court, issues tried by express or implied consent of the parties shall be treated as if raised in the pleadings. PAL’s failure to object to the evidence rendered it part of the case.
2. Regarding damages:
* Actual Damages: The award of P5,000.00 for alleged loss of business opportunities was deleted for being speculative and not proved with reasonable certainty. The awards for actual transportation and accommodation expenses (P200.00, P48.00, P500.00) were sustained.
* Moral Damages: The award was reduced from P50,000.00 to P10,000.00. The Court found PAL liable for breach of its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety and comfort of its passengers. PAL’s failure to provide basic assistance (transportation, food, accommodation) to a stranded passenger, despite the diversion being due to force majeure, constituted a wanton disregard of his comfort and convenience, justifying moral damages for the anxiety and humiliation suffered.
* Exemplary Damages: The award was reduced from P10,000.00 to P5,000.00, warranted by PAL’s negligent failure to extend proper care to its stranded passenger.