Tamayo vs.

Aquino et al & Rayos

G.R. Nos. L12634 and L-12720
May 29, 1959

ISSUE:

Facts:

Whether or not passenger Carrascoso was entitled to

damages.

Epifania Gonzales (wife of Aquino) boarded a truck owned

by Tamayo, holder of a certificate of public convenience to
operate. Allegedly, while Epifania was making a trip aboard
the truck, it bumped against a culvert on the side of the
road, causing her death. Aquino et al filed an action for
damages against Tamayo. Tamayo answered alleging that
the truck is owned by Rayos, so he filed a 3rd party
complaint against him (Rayos). The CFI ruled that Tamayo
is the registered owner, under a public convenience
certificate but such truck was sold to Rayos one month
after the accident, but he (Tamayo) did not inform the
Public Service Commission of the sale. CFI held Tamayo
and Rayos jointly and severally liable to Aquino. CA
affirmed, holding that, both the registered owner (Tamayo)
and the actual owner and operator (Rayos) should be
considered as joint tortfeasors and should be made liable
in accordance with Article 2194 of the Civil Code (solidary).
Issue: WON Art 2194 (solidary liability) is applicable; and,
if NOT, how should Tamayo (holder of the cert. of public
convenience) participate with Rayos (transferee/operator)
in the damages recoverable.
Held: No, Art 2194 is not applicable.
The action instituted in this case is one for breach of
contract, for failure of the defendant to carry safety the
deceased for her destination. The liability for which he is
made responsible, i.e., for the death of the passenger, may
not be considered as arising from a quasi-delict. As the
registered owner Tamayo and his transferee Rayos may not
be held guilty of tort or a quasi-delict; their responsibility is
NOT SOLIDARY.
As Tamayo is the registered owner of the truck, his
responsibility to the public or to any passenger riding in the
vehicle or truck must be direct. If the policy of the law is to
be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should
not be allowed to prove that a third person or another has
become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of
the responsibility to the injured. But as the transferee, who
operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the one
directly responsible for the accident and death he should in
turn be made responsible to the registered owner for what
the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In operating the
truck without transfer thereof having been approved by the
Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as
agent of the registered owner and should be responsible to
him (the registered owner), for any damages that he may
cause the latter by his negligence.

AIR FRANCE VS CARRASCOSO (GRN L-21438/September

28, 1966)
SANCHEZ, J.:
FACTS:
Carrascoso was a member of a group of 48 Filipino
pilgrims that left Manila forLourdes on March 30,
1958. Air France issued a first class round trip ticket
from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, passenger
Carrascoso traveled in first class but at Bangkok, the
Manager of Air France forced him to vacate the first class
seat because a white man had a better right to it. The
purser wrote in his record book First class passenger was
forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and the
captain refused to intervene which was written in French.
Petitioner contends that damages must be averred that
there was fraud and bad faith in order that claim for
damages should set in.

RULING:
Although true that there was no mention of bad
faith in the complaint, the inference of bad faith can be
drawn from the facts and circumstances therein.The
petitioner violated its contract of transportation with the
aggravating circumstance committed by its manager when
it went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in the
presence of many passengers.
Northwest Airlines V. Cuenca
G.R. L-22425 August 31, 1965
FACTS

When his contract of carriage was violated by the

petitioner, respondent held theoffice of Commissioner of
Public Highways of the Republic of the Philippines.Having
boarded petitioner's plane in Manila with a first class ticket
to Tokyo, he was, upon arrival at Okinawa, transferred to
the tourist class compartment. Although he revealed that
he was traveling in his official capacity as official
delegateof the Republic to a conference in Tokyo, an agent
of petitioner rudely compelledhim in the presence of other
passengers to move, over his objection, to the touristclass,
under threat of otherwise leaving him in Okinawa. In order
to reach theconference on time, respondent had no choice
but to obey.

This is an action for damages for alleged breach

of contract. After appropriateproceedings the Court of First
Instance of Manila, in which the case was originally filed,
rendered judgment sentencing defendant Northwest
Airlines, Inc. hereinafter referred to as petitioner to
pay to plaintiff Cuenca hereinafterreferred to as
respondent the sum of P20,000 as moral damages,
together withthe sum of P5,000 as exemplary damages,
with legal interest thereon from the dateof the filing of
complaint," December 12, 1959, "until fully paid, plus the
furthersum of P2,000 as attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation." On appeal taken by petitioner, said decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except as to
theP5,000.00 exemplary damages, which was eliminated,
and the P20,000.00 award formoral damages, which was
converted into nominal damages.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS Whether or not the court erred in
awarding nominal damage?
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINo.
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages." In the case at bar, theCourt of Appeals has
adjudicated no such compensatory, moral and exemplary
damagesto respondent herein. There are special reasons
why the P20,000.00 award in favor of respondent herein is
justified, even if said award were characterized as nominal
damages.It is true that said ticket was marked "W/L," but
respondent's attention was not calledthereto. Much less
was he advised that "W/L" meant "wait listed." Upon the
other hand,having paid the first class fare in full and having
been given first class accommodation ashe took
petitioner's plane in Manila, respondent was entitled to
believe that this was aconfirmation of his first class
reservation and that he would keep the same until
hisultimate destination, Tokyo. Then, too, petitioner has not
tried to explain or even allegedthat the person to whom
respondent's first class seat was given had a better right
thereto.In other words, since the offense had been
committed with full knowledge of the factthat respondent
was an official representative of the Republic of the
Philippines, the sumof P20,000 awarded as damages may
well be considered as merely nominal. At any
rate,considering that petitioner's agent had acted in a
wanton, reckless and oppressivemanner, said award may
also be considered as one for exemplary

damages. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is

hereby affirmed, with costs against thepetitioner. It is so
ordered

3D 2009-2010 DIGESTS TORTS & DAMAGES

Page 465 of 528
417. Armovit v Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990
FACTS

Dr. Armovit, a Filipino physician and his family residing in

the United States cameto the Philippines on a Christmas
visit. They were bumped off at the ManilaInternational
Airport on their return flight to the United States because
of anerroneous entry in their plane ticket relating to their
time of departure.

In October 1981, they decided to spend their Christmas

holidays with relatives andfriends in the Philippines so they
purchased from Northwest three roundtrip Airlinetickets
from the United States to Manila and back, plus three
tickets for the rest of the children, though not involved in
the suit.

Each ticket of the petitioners which was in the handwriting

of Northwests ticketssales agent contains the following
entry on the Manila to Tokyo portion of thereturn flight
'Manila to Tokyo, NW flight 002 dated 17 January, time
10:30 a.m.Status OK."

On their return trip from Manila to the U.S. scheduled on

January 17,1982, Armovitarrived at the check in counter of
Northwest at the Manila International Airport at9:15 in the
morning, a good one (1) hour and Fifteen (15) minutes
ahead of the10:30 a.m. scheduled flight time recited in
their ticket. They were rudely informedthat they cannot be
accommodated inasmuch as flight 002 scheduled at 9:15
a.m. was already taking off and the 10:30 a.m. flight entere
d in their plane ticket waserroneous.

Previous to the said date of departure the petitioners reconfirmed their reservationsthrough their representatives
who personally presented the three (3) tickets at
theNorthwest office. The departure time in the three (3)
tickets of the petitioners wasnot changed when reconfirmed. The names of petitioners appeared in
thepassenger manifest and confirmed.

Petitioner Dr. Armovit protested that because of the

bumped-off he will not be ableto keep his appointment with
his patients in the United States. Petitioners
sufferedanguish, wounded feelings, and serious anxiety
day and night of January 17th untilthe morning of January
18th when they were finally informed that seats will
beavailable for them on the flight of that day. The trial
court rendered judgmentagainst the airline as follows:
P1,300.00 actual damages; P500,000.00 moral
damages;P500,000.00 exemplary damages; and
P100,000.00 nominal damages in favor of Dr. Armovit;
also moral damages of P300,000.00; exemplary damages
of P300,000.00; nominal damages of P50,000.00 each in
favor of Mrs. Armovit andMiss Jacqueline Arrnovit.

The Court of Appeals modified the trial courts judgment a

s follows: TheP900,000.00 moral damages and
P100,000.00 nominal damages awarded
to petitioners were eliminated
; exemplary damages were reduced from P500,000.00to
P50,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Armovit and from P300,000.00
to P20,000.00 infavor of Miss Jacqueline Armovit.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTSW/N the Armovits are entitled to
Nominal Damages
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDINO. NOMINAL DAMAGES
CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES.

The Supreme Court further modified the Court of Appeals j

udgment as follows: Actual damages in favor of Dr.
Armovit, P1,300.00 with legal interest from January 17,
1982; moral damages at P100,000.00, and exemplary
damages at P100,000.00 infavor of Dr. Armovit; Moral
damages at P100,000.00 and exemplary damages
atP50,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Armovit; Moral damages at
P100,000.00 and exemplary damages of P20,000.00 in
favor of Mrs. Jacqueline Armovit; and attorneys fees at5%
of the total awards under above paragraphs, plus costs of
suit, and
o
1. The gross negligence committed by Northwest in the
issuance of the
tickets with entries as to the time of the flight; the failure t
o correct such erroneousentries and the manner by which
petitioners were rudely informed that
they were bumped off` are clear indicia of such malice and
bad faith and establishthat respondent has committed a
breach of contract which entitle petitioners tomoral
damages.
o
2. Considering the circumstances of this case whereby
Northwest attended tothe flight of the petitioners, taking
care of their accommodation while waiting and boarding
them in the flight back to the United States the following
dag;. theCourt finds that petitioners are entitled to moral
damages in the amount of P100,000.00 each.
o
3. By the same token to provide an example for the public
good, an award of exemplary damages is also proper, the
award of the appellate court is adequate.
o
4
. The deletion of nominal damages by the appellate court is
well-takensince there is an award of actual damages.
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual and
compensatory damages
Trans World Airlines (TWA) vs. CA
Facts:
Vinluan, a practicing lawyer in Manila had to travel to
several cities in Europe and US. While in
Paris, he went to the office of TWA to confirm his
reservation for first class accommodation. It
was confirmed twice. During the time of the flight, he was
told that there was no 1st class seat
available. Hence, he was downgraded to economy. He
protested but he was arrogantly treated by
a TWA employee. And while waiting for his flight, he saw
white Caucasians who arrived much
later than him, in first class seats.
Issue: WON Vinluan is entitled to damages.
Held:
Yes.
1 The discrimination is obvious and the humiliation to
which private respondent was subjected is
undeniable. Consequently, the award of moral and
exemplary damages by the respondent court is
in order.
2 Inattention and lack of care for the interest of its
passengers who are entitled to its utmost
consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount
to bad faith which entitles the
passenger to the award of moral damages. More so in this
case where instead of courteously
informing private respondent of his being downgraded
under the circumstances, he was angrily
rebuffed by an employee of petitioner.
Zulueta vs. Pan Am
Facts:
Mr. Zulueta and his wife and child boarded a flight of Pan
Am from Wake Island to the Phil. Mr.
Zulueta, however, had to relieve himself and thus looked
for a secluded place in the beach. As a
result, he was delayed in boarding for some 20 or 30
minutes. While Mr. Zulueta was reaching
the ramp, the captain of the plane demonstrated an
intemperate and arrogant tone thereby

impelling Mr. Zulueta to answer back. Thus, Mr. Zulueta

was off-loaded. The airport manager of
then sent Mr. Zulueta a letter stating that his stay in Wake
Island would be for a minimum of one
week during which he would be charged $13.30 per day.
Issue: WON Pan Am should be held liable.
Held:
Yes. Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded to retaliate and punish him
for the embarrassment and loss of
face thus suffered by defendants agent.
The Zuluetas had a contract of carriage with the
defendant, as a common carrier, pursuant to
which the latter was bound, for a substantial monetary
consideration paid by the former, not
merely to transport them to Manila, but, also, to do so with
extraordinary diligence or utmost
diligence. The responsibility of the common carrier, under
said contract, as regards the
passengers safety, is of such a nature, affecting as it does
public interest, that it cannot
be dispensed with or even lessenedby stipulation, by the
posting of notices, by statements on
tickets, or otherwise.
In the present case, the defendant did not only fail to
comply with its obligation to transport Mr. Zulueta to
Manila, but, also, acted in a manner calculated to humiliate
him, to chastise him, to
make him suffer, to cause to him the greatest possible
inconvenience.

With regard to DAMAGES

It is obvious, however, that in off-loading plaintiff at Wake
Island, under the circumstances,
defendants agents had acted with malice aforethought
and evident bad faith. If gross
negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages,
with more reason is its imposition
justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious
and tainted with bad faith.
The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is,
as the name implies, to provide an
example or correction for public good. Defendant having
breached its contracts in bad faith, the
court, as stated earlier, may award exemplary damages in
addition to moral damages

graver nature, since the preference given to the Belgian

passenger over plaintiff was done willfully and in wanton
disregard of plaintiffs rights and his dignity as a human
being and as a Filipino, who may not be discriminated
against with impunity, as found by the court below what
worsened the situation of Ortigas was that Lufthansa
succeeded in keeping him as its passenger by assuring him
that he would be given first class accommodation at Cairo,
the next station, the proper arrangements therefore having
been made already, when in truth such was not the case.
Transportation Law Case DigestsPetitioner is booked on
a fi rst class accommodation in defendants airline
from Rome to
Manila.T h e b o o k i n g w a s c o n fi r m e d b y i t s a i r l i
n e s o ffi c e . T h e a i r l i n e e m p l o y e e u p o n g s e e i
n g h i s F i l i p i n o nationality disallowed his boarding
and the seat was given to a Belgian. Petitioner has
a heart ailment and is advised by physician to take only
frst class accommodations. He was promised to be
transferredto first class on all succeeding layovers
from Cairo to Hongkong to no avail. Damages
was filed. Trialcourt awarded Moral and Exemplary
damages.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant is liable for damages.
Held:
Yes. Inattenton and lack of care on the carrier
rsulting in the failure of the passenger to
beaccommodated in a class availed of and
contracted amounts to bad faith and fraud.
Furthermore, thep r e f e r e n c e t o a B e l g i a n
passenger is also a wanton disregard of his
r i g h t f r o m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h e successive false
representations of transferring him to first class is an act
of malice and bad faith. Thisentitles petitioner to
moral damages in accordance to Articlec 2220.
Moral damages is increased to Php15,000 and
Exemplary damages to Php100,000.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Esguerra117 SCRA 741Facts:
99

ORTIGAS V. LUFTHANSA
Francisco

Ortigas,

and

defendant

Luthansa

German

Airlines, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of

Manila Branch Y, condemning the defendant to pay
plaintiff the amount of P100,000 as moral damages,
P30,000 as exemplary or corrective damages, with interest
of both sums at the legal rate from the commencement of
this suit until fully paid, P20,000 as attorneys fees and the
costs for the former failure to comply with its obligation
to give first accommodation to (the latter) a (Filipino)
passenger holding a first class ticket, aggravated by the
giving of the space instead to a Belgian and the improper
conduct of its agents in dealing with him during the
occasion of such discriminatory violence of its contract of
carriage.
Issue: Whether Lufthansa is liable for damages?
Held: The court said that when it comes to contracts of
common carriage, inattention and lack of care on the part
of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be
accommodated in class contracted for amounts to bad
faith and fraud which entitles the passenger to the award
of moral damages in accordance with the 2220 of the Civil
Code. But in the instant case, the breach appears to the

Transportation Law Case DigestsRespondent herein

boarded a bus of the plaintiff herein which was
bound for Pampanga from Manila. He sat a few seats
behind the driver on the left side of the bus near the
window. While on routeto Pampanga, the bus sideswiped
with a freight truck owned and operated by Transport
Contractors, thelatter coming from the opposite side of the
highway. The window glass near the driver's seat of the
buswas detached and the left side of its body was
damaged. During the course of the accident, the
leftf o r e a r m o f E s g u e r r a w a s h i t b y a h a r d
blunt object. It caused the breaking of its
b o n e s i n t o s m a l l fragments while the soft tissues
of the muscles and the skin were mascerated. He
was immediatelybrought to the Bulacan Provincial
Hospital in Malolos, Bulacan for treatment. Unfortunately,
because of the severe damage caused, his left arm was
amputated.Defendant herein filed a case to recover
damages. The lower court rendered a decision in favor o f
E s g u e r r a , fi n d i n g t h a t b o t h v e h i c l e s w e r e
reckless in driving. On appeal, the court
a ffi r m e d t h e decision of the lower court and awarded
actual and moral damages to the respondent herein. Hence
thispetition.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is entitled to receive moral
damages.
Held:
The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in
awarding moral damages to the respondentherein.
As a general rule moral damages are not
recoverable in actions for damages predicated on
abreach of the contract of transportation, as in the instant
case, in view of the provisions of Articles 2219and 2220
of the New Civil Code. The exceptions are (1)
where the mishap results in the death of
apassenger, and (2) where it is proved that the carrier was

guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if death doesnot result.

In the case at bar, the Court fi nds that both
vehicles were in their respective lanes and
bothwere equally negli gent. The Court does not
fi nd that there was malice or bad faith on the part
of thedriver of the petitioner herein. Therefore the award
of moral damages is deleted and the rest affirmed
Sweet Lines v. Court of Appeals121 SCRA 769Facts:
100
Transportation Law Case DigestsThe respondents,
having fi rst class tickets, boarded the M/V Sweet
Grace to Catbalogan. Thevessel had some engine
problems which led to a change of schedule
and they were thus delayed for asubstanti al
amount of time. Furthermore, the vess el bought
the respondents to Tacloban instead
of Catbalogan. This led the respondents to
purchase another set of tickets and to ride
another ferryboatgoing to Catbalogan. The
respondents then sued the petitioner carrier for
damages for the breach of contract of carriage.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages.
Held:
The Court held that the petitioner is liable for damages
specifically moral damages because therewas bad faith
on its part. The Court found that such bad faith
is present bas ed on three
circumstances namely:1 . P e t i t i o n e r d i d
n o t g i v e a n y n o t i c e t o
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a s t o t h e c h a n g
e o f s c h e d u l e o f the
vessel.2 . T h e p e t i t i o n e r k n e w
f u l l y t h a t i t w o u l d t a ke n o l e s s
t h a n fi f t e e n ( 1 5 ) h o u r s t o
e ff e c t t h e repairs of the damaged engine.
The petitioner also assured that the vessel will
leave within ashort period of time and when the
defendants wanted to leave the trip peti tioner
stated that the the vessel is already
leaving.3 . T h e
p e t i t i o n e r
d i d
n o t
e v e n
o ff
e r
t o
r e f u n
d
t h e
t i c k e t s
a n d
p r o v i d
e
f o r
t h e i r
transportation from Tacloban
to Catbalogan.
Prudencio v. Alliance Transport System148 SCRA 440Facts:
101
Transportation Law Case DigestsDra. Sofi a L.
Prudenciado was driving her own car along Taft
Avenue to go to the Philippine Normal College
Compound where she would hold classes. As she was
moving slowly in a normal rate,her car was then hit by the
taxi operated by the respondent. The accident caused the
petitioner physicalinjuries and a brain concussion. She then
filed for an action for damages against respondent. The
lower court, fi nding the respondents driver to be
negligent, granted the damages and the Court of
Appeals reduced the damages. The petitioner then
appealed from the decision of the appellate court.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages by the Court of
Appeals was correct.
Held:
The Court held that the reduction of the moral
damages by the appellate court to the
petitioner was unreasonable and drastic. The
reason was that the trial court found the
respondent to be grossly negligent in injuring the
petitioner. The award of moral damages was proper. The
appeal by the petitioner is proper because, as a doctor, she
has reasonable fears that such accident due to the
carelessness of the respondents driver can greatly affect
her profession.Exemplary damages are also awarded to the
petitioner to provide for an example or correction topublic
good. The reason is that the respondents driver was
driving at a high speed on a rainy day and ona slippery
road with complete disregard with the safety of other
people.
PAN-AM V. IAC

P r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t T i n i t i g a n , fi l e d a c o m p l a i
nt against petitioner for damages arising fr
omdefendant's alleged refusal to accommod
a t e h e r o n Pa n A m F l i g h t N o .
4 3 1 f r o m S t o . D o m i n g o , Republica Dominica to
San Juan, Puerto Rico notwithstanding that she
possessed a confi rmed plane ticket. She is a
businesswoman and a multimillionaire (proprietor of
Sampaguita Restaurant, New YorkCity USA; Treasurer of the
Molave Development Corp., Phil., proprietor of Cavite
Household Appliancesand Rowena's Handicraft, Phil.),
was on a business trip with a Pan-Am ticket. While
in Sto. Domingo, Tinitigan is expected to be in San Juan
that same day to meet a client to sign a contract or lose it.
Shewas expected to make a profit of $1,000 in said
contract but her failure to board the flight, said profit
waslost. The refusal of accommodation caused her to suffer
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirchedreputation,
wounded feelings and social humiliation She prayed that
she be awarded moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary
damages of P200,000.00, attorney's fees of P100,000.00
and actual
damagess u s t a i n e d b y h e r i n t h e a m o u n t o f U S $ 1 ,
5 4 6 . 1 5 . D e f e n d a n t d e n i e d t h a t p l a i n t i ff w a s a c
o n fi r m e d passenger since the ticket issued to her was on
an open space basis, which meant that she could onlybe
accommodated if any of the confirmed passengers failed to
show up at the airport before departure.The lower court
rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarded
the amount of damages as prayedfor. Said decision
was affirmed hence the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages was proper.
Held:
Yes, but subject to modifications. Other instances which
caused moral damage to the plaintiff arethe following:1.
While plaintiff was standing in line to board the
aircraft, a Pan Am employee ordered her in a
loud voice to step out of line because her ticket was not
confirmed to her embarrassment in the presence
of several people who heard and order. Despite her
Pleas she was not allowed to board the aircraft.
Andher seat was also given to a Caucasian.2. When the
plane took off without her but with her luggage on
board. She was forced to return to her hotel without
any luggage much less an extra dress.Evidence shows
petitioner as confirmed passenger. 1.) Defendant issued a
Passenger Ticket andBaggage Check with assigned seat
and the corresponding pass and baggage claim symbol. 2.)
Plaintiff paid the fare and terminal fee. 3.)
plaintiff 's passport was stamped by immigration.
4.) Plaintiff 's name was included in the passenger
manifest. There is a contract or carriage perfected between
plaintiff anddefendant for the latter to take plaintiff to her
place of destination. By refusing to accommodate plaintiff
insaid flight, defendant had willfully and knowingly violated
the contract of carriage and failed to bring theplaintiff to
her place of des tination under its contract with
plaintiff . There is showing of bad faith. Selfenrichment or fraternal interest and not personal ill will
may have been the motive of defendant, but it ismalice
nevertheless. Malice is shown by the fact that that plaintiff
was ordered out of the line under somepretext in order to
accommodate a white man.Exemplary damages and
Attorneys fees are also awarded. The rational
behind exemplary or corrective damages is,
to provide an example or correction for public
good. SC reduced the moral and exemplary damages
to the combined total sum of Two Hundred Thousand
(P200,000.00) Pesos and theattorney's fees to Twenty
Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos. The award of actual
damages in the amount of One Thousand
Five Hundred Forty Six American dollars
and fi fteen cents (US$1,546.15) computed atthe
exchange rate prevailing at the time of payment is hereby
retained and granted.

Armovit v. Court of Appeals184 SCRA 476

Facts: The petitioners in this case all resided in the United
States and went home to the Philippines for aChristmas
visit. On their return trip to the United States,
they were bumped off at the airport due to
an erroneous entry in their plane tickets relating to the
departure time. The petitioners checked in the airportan
hour and fi fteen minutes earli er than what was
indicated in their airline tickets. Upon their check
in,the employees of the respondent airlines impolitely
informed them that the plane was already taking off and
that their check in time was way earli er and
entirely diff erent from what was stated in their
tickets. The petitioners then sued the respondent airlines
for damages.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for damages.
Held:
The Court held that the respondent is liable for damages.
Actual damages were awarded to thepetitioner due to
bumped off that occurred. Moral damages were also
awarded because the Court foundthat the respondent was
gross negligent in the issuance of the tickets as to the
correct time of departure.In addition, the act of the
respondent in rudely informing the petitioner of such
bumped off is an indicationt h a t t h e r e w a s b a d f a i t h
and malice on the part of the respon dent.
Fu r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e l a t i v e o f t h e petitioner stated
how badly wounded the feelings of the petitioners were.
Exemplary damages were alsoawarded as to provide for an
example to the public good. Lastly, nominal damages were
properly deletedsince such damages cannot co-exist with
actual damages.
Cachero v. Manila Yellow Taxicab
FACTS: Atty. Cachero, plaintiff herein, boarded a taxicab
owned by the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. The said
taxicab bumped against a Meralco post. The taxicab was
badly smashed and the plaintiff fell out of the vehicle to
the ground. As a result of the accident, he suffered slight
physical injuries. The driver of the taxi was prosecuted and
convicted criminally. Respondent herein offered to settle
the case and the plaintiff demanded the amount of
P79,245.65 as for damages. Respondent refused to pay the
said amount. Plaintiff then proceeded to file a case to
recover the same amount through the courts. The CFI
rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and ordered
that respondent pay the amount of P700 for medical and
transportation allowances, attorneys fees and professional
fees. Both parties appealed and the decision was affirmed.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cachero is entitled to recover
damages other than those already awarded.
HELD: The Court modified the decision of the lower court.
The award of professional fees were reduced to P2,000 and
the award of moral damages of P2,000. Plaintiff in this case
did not maintain his action against all persons liable for the
breach of the contract of common carriage. Since he did
not include the driver in this complaint he may not recover
moral damages. Respondent herein did not commit any
criminal offense against the plaintiff, it was the driver who
was the reason behind the injury. This case does not fall
under Article 2219 of the NCC therefore he is not entitled
to be awarded moral damages.

Fores v. Miranda
FACTS: Ireneo Miranda, a professor of Fine Arts, was a
passenger of a passenger jeepney registered to Fores but
actuall operated by Sackerman. The vehicle was
descending the Sta. Mesa bridge at an excessive rate of
speed, and the driver lost control of the same which
caused it to swerve and to hit the bridge wall. As a result of
the accident, Five of the passengers were injured, including
the respondent herein. He suffered a fracture of the upper
right humerus. He was taken to the National Orthopedic
Hospital for treatment, and later was subjected to a series
of operations. At the time of the trial, it appears that
respondent had not yet recovered the use of his right arm.
The driver was charged with serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence, and upon interposing a plea
of guilty was sentenced accordingly. The lower court
awarded actual damages to the respondent. On appeal, the
Court reduced the amount of actual damages and added
the award of moral damages and attorneys fees. Hence
this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the award of moral damages and
attorneys fee was proper.
HELD: The Court held that the award of moral damages is
not proper in this case. As a general rule, moral damages
are not awarded to the victim in cases of breach of
contract of common carriage. The exception is that if such
accident resulted in the death of the passenger, in which
case Article 1764 of the NCC, makes the carrier subject to
Article 2206 of the NCC. In case death did not result from
the accident, moral damages may be recovered if the
common carrier is found guilty of gross negligence
amounting to bad faith or malice. In the case at bar there
was no bad faith on the part of the common carrier.
Therefore, respondent is not entitled to moral damages. As
to the issue of attorneys fee, the court may moto proprio
award moral damages as the case may be. Attorneys fees
may be awarded by the court if it is deemed to be just and
equitable. Therefore, the Court set aside the decision of the
Court of Appeals as far as moral damages are concerned.
Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Cornista
FACTS: Appeal of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., from a
judgment of Court of First Instance of Batangas wherein
appellee Herminio L. Nocum was plaintiff, sentencing
Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. to pay Nocum the sum of
P1,351.00 for actual damages and P500.00 as attorney's
fees with legal interest from the filing of the complaint plus
costs. Nocum, who was a passenger in Lagunna Tayabas
Bus No. 120 then making a trip within the barrio of Dita,
Municipality of Bay, Laguna, was injured as a consequence
of the explosion of firecrackers, contained in a box, loaded
in said bus and declared to its conductor as containing
clothes and miscellaneous items by a co-passenger. The
findings of fact of the trial court are not assailed. The
appeal is purely on legal questions.