Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.