You are on page 1of 2

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED v ANDION FERNANDEZ contract of carriage arises.

The passenger then has


every right to expect that he be transported on that
Facts: flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier
Andion Fernandez is an acclaimed soprano here in the opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract of
Philippines and abroad. At the time of the incident, she carriage.
was availing an educational grant from the Federal
Republic of Germany. The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Imbued
with public interest, the law requires common carriers
She was invited to sing before the King and Queen of to carry the passengers safely as far as human care
Malaysia on February 3 and 4, 1991. For this singing and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
engagement, an airline passage ticket was purchased of very cautious persons with due regard for all the
from petitioner Singapore Airlines which would circumstances. In an action for breach of contract
transport her to Manila from Frankfurt, Germany on of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have
January 28, 1991. From Manila, she would proceed to to prove that the common carrier was at fault or
Malaysia on the next day. It was necessary for the was negligent. All that is necessary to prove is
respondent to pass by Manila in order to gather her the existence of the contract and the fact of its
wardrobe and to rehearse. non-performance by the carrier.

Petitioner issued respondent a ticket for Flight No. SQ Petitioner clearly breached its contract of carriage with
27, from Germany to Singapore with onward the respondent. The respondent had every right to sue
connections to Manila. The flight was to arrive at the petitioner for this breach. The defense that the
Singapore 8:30 a.m. of January 28, 1991 and the delay was due to fortuitous events and beyond
connecting flight to Manila was to leave at 11:00 a.m. petitioner's control is unavailing.
of the same day. Flight No. SQ 27, however, arrived in
Singapore two hours later than scheduled and In the case at bar, petitioner was not without recourse
respondent missed the connecting flight. to enable it to fulfill its obligation to transport the
respondent safely as scheduled as far as human care
Upon respondent's persistence despite the and foresight can provide to her destination. Tagged
inattentiveness and rudeness of the airline personnel, as a premiere airline as it claims to be and with
she was told that she can actually fly to Hong Kong the complexities of air travel, it was certainly
going to Manila but since her ticket was non- well-equipped to be able to foresee and deal
transferable, she would have to pay for the ticket. The with such situation.
respondent could not accept the offer because she
had no money to pay for it. Her pleas for the The petitioner's diligence in communicating to its
respondent to make arrangements to transport her to passengers the consequences of the delay in their
Manila were unheeded. flights was wanting. Petitioner did not take the trouble
of informing respondent, among its other passengers
As a result of this incident, the respondent's of the delay and that in such a case, the usual practice
performance before the Royal Family of Malaysia was of the airline according to its manual will be that they
below par. Because of the rude and unkind treatment have to stay overnight at their connecting airport; and
she received from the petitioner's personnel in much less did it inquire from Fernandez and the other
Singapore, the respondent was engulfed with fear, 25 passengers bound for Manila whether they are
anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment causing her amenable to stay overnight in Singapore and to take
to suffer mental fatigue and skin rashes. She was the connecting flight to Manila the next day.
thereby compelled to seek immediate medical
attention upon her return to Manila for "acute When a passenger contracts for a specific flight, he
urticaria." has a purpose in making that choice which must be
respected. This choice, once exercised, must not be
RTC ruled in favor of respondent and awarded impaired by a breach on the part of the airline without
damages. the latter incurring any liability. For petitioner's
failure to bring the respondent to her
The petitioner assails the award of damages destination, as scheduled, the petitioner clearly
contending that it exercised the extraordinary liable for the breach of its contract of carriage
diligence required by law under the given with the respondent.
circumstances and that the delay of the flight was due
to was due to a fortuitous event and beyond BAD FAITH: Petitioner acted in bad faith. Bad faith
petitioner's control. The plane could not take off from means a breach of known duty through some motive
the airport in Copenhagen as the place was shrouded of interest or ill will. Self-enrichment or fraternal
with fog. This delay caused a "snowball effect" interest, and not personal ill will, may well have been
whereby the other flights were consequently delayed. the motive; but it is malice nevertheless. Bad faith
was imputed by the trial court when it found that the
ISSUE: WON petitioner is liable to pay for damages? petitioner's employees at the Singapore airport did not
accord the respondent the attention and treatment
RULING: YES. allegedly warranted under the circumstances.

When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, The employee at the counter was unkind and of no
confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date, a help to her. The respondent further alleged that
without her threats of suing the company, she was not a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. The
allowed to use the company's phone to make long award of exemplary damages is, therefore, warranted
distance calls to her mother in Manila. The male in this case.
employee at the counter where it says: "Immediate
Attention to Passengers with Immediate Booking" was
rude to her when he curtly retorted that he was busy
attending to other passengers in line.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: Article 2232 of the Civil Code


provides that in a contractual or quasi-contractual
relationship, exemplary damages may be awarded
only if the defendant had acted in a "wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner." In this case, petitioner's employees acted in

You might also like