Delayed Flight - No Bad Faith

MARITO T. BERNALES, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, G.R. No. 182395, October 05, 2015.

Moral damages predicated upon a breach of a carriage contract is only recoverable in instances where the mishap results in the death
of a passenger,16 or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.17 Bad faith is not simple negligence or bad judgment; it involves ill
intentions and a conscious design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose.18

Under the carriage contract, NWA had the obligation to transport the petitioner from Narita International Airport to Honolulu, Hawaii,
on 1 October 2002 at 8:40 p.m. NWA failed to perform this duty because a strong typhoon hit Japan that evening, forcing widespread
flight cancellations. Nevertheless, NWA attempted to fly the petitioner to Honolulu on a later flight after the typhoon passed. This
attempt failed because NWA was prevented by the mandatory airport curfew. NWA was only able to fulfill its obligation at 3:35 p.m.
the following day

The primary cause of NWA's delay in the fulfillment of its obligation was the unusually strong typhoon that struck Japan that evening.
We take notice that this was Typhoon Higos, one of the most powerful typhoons to hit Japan as of that date.19 Typhoon Higos resulted
in the cancellation of more than 200 flights.20

From this perspective, we cannot attribute bad faith or ill motives on NWA for cancelling Flight No. 10. Pushing through would have
recklessly endangered the lives of the passengers and the crew. Evidently, the real and proximate cause of NWA's breach of contract
was a fortuitous event.

Moreover, NWA demonstrated good faith when it exerted its best efforts to accommodate the delayed Flight No. 10 passengers on
Flight No. 22. While Flight No. 22 also failed to leave, the failure was caused by the 1:00 p.m. Narita curfew. Again, we cannot attribute
malice on NWA for the cancellation of Flight No. 22.
Delayed Flight - Force Majeure (coupled with negligence)
SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED v. ANDION FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 142305, December 10, 2003.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the respondent carried a confirmed ticket for the two-legged trip from Frankfurt to Manila: 1)
Frankfurt-Singapore; and 2) Singapore-Manila. In her contract of carriage with the petitioner, the respondent certainly expected that
she would fly to Manila on Flight No. SQ 72 on January 28, 1991. Since the petitioner did not transport the respondent as covenanted
by it on said terms, the petitioner clearly breached its contract of carriage with the respondent. The respondent had every right to sue
the petitioner for this breach. The defense that the delay was due to fortuitous events and beyond petitioner’s control is unavailing.
In PAL vs. CA,22 we held that:

.... Undisputably, PAL’s diversion of its flight due to inclement weather was a fortuitous event.
Nonetheless, such occurrence did not terminate PAL’s contract with its passengers. Being in the business
of air carriage and the sole one to operate in the country, PAL is deemed to be equipped to deal with
situations as in the case at bar. What we said in one case once again must be stressed, i.e., the relation
of carrier and passenger continues until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left
the carrier’s premises. Hence, PAL necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in
safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers until they have reached
their final destination...

"...If the cause of non-fulfillment of the contract is due to a fortuitous event, it has to be the sole and
only cause (Art. 1755 C.C., Art. 1733 C.C.). Since part of the failure to comply with the obligation of
common carrier to deliver its passengers safely to their destination lay in the defendant’s failure to
provide comfort and convenience to its stranded passengers using extraordinary diligence, the cause of
non-fulfillment is not solely and exclusively due to fortuitous event, but due to something which
defendant airline could have prevented, defendant becomes liable to plaintiff."

Indeed, in the instant case, petitioner was not without recourse to enable it to fulfill its obligation to transport the respondent safely
as scheduled as far as human care and foresight can provide to her destination. Tagged as a premiere airline as it claims to be and with
the complexities of air travel, it was certainly well-equipped to be able to foresee and deal with such situation.
The respondent was not remiss in conveying her apprehension about the delay of the flight when she was still in Frankfurt. Upon the
assurance of petitioner’s personnel in Frankfurt that she will be transported to Manila on the same date, she had every right to expect
that obligation fulfilled.

Delayed Baggage – Only Actual Damages if no Bad Faith

PHILIPPINE AIR LINES v. FLORANTE A. MIANO, G.R. No. 106664 March 8, 1995.

In breach of contract of carriage by air, moral damages are awarded only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.1 Bad faith
means a breach of a known duty through same motive of interest or ill will.2

The trial court erred in awarding moral damages to private respondent. The established facts evince that petitioner's late delivery of
the baggage for eleven (11) days was not motivated by ill will or bad faith. In fact, it immediately coordinated with its Central Baggage
Services to trace private respondent's suitcase and succeeded in finding it. At the hearing, petitioner's Manager for Administration of
Airport Services Department Miguel Ebio testified that their records disclosed that Manila, the originating station, did not receive any
tracer telex.8 A tracer telex, an airline lingo, is an action of any station that the airlines operate from whom a passenger may complain
or have not received his baggage upon his arrival.9 It was reasonable to presume that the handling of the baggage was normal and
regular. Upon inquiry from their Frankfurt Station, it was however discovered that the interline tag of private respondent's baggage
was accidentally taken off. According to Mr. Ebio, it was customary for destination stations to hold a tagless baggage until properly
identified. The tracer telex, which contained information on the baggage, is matched with the tagless luggage for identification.
Without the tracer telex, the color and the type of baggage are used as basis for the matching. Thus, the delay.

Worthy to stress, the trial court made an unequivocal conclusion that petitioner did not act in bad faith or with malice, viz.:

xxx xxx xxx

Absent a finding as to the bad intention of defendant (petitioner) PAL, this court finds it appropriate to
apply the Warsaw Convention with respect to the liability of Air Carriers.

xxx xxx xxx

1
Civil Code, Article 2220.
2
Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways, No. L-22415, March 30, 1966.
 The mere fact that defendant (petitioner) exerted effort to assist plaintiff (private respondent) in his
predicament as shown in defendant's (petitioner's) letter to plaintiff (private respondent) (Exh. "E") and
likewise the letter from Mr. Miguel Ebio, Manager-Airport Services Administration of defendant
(petitioner) PAL to its Senior Counsel-Litigation, Atty. Marceliano Calica (Exh. "3") which reveals the fact
that an investigation was conducted as to mishandled baggage, coupled with the fact that said
information were then relayed to plaintiff (private respondent) as evidenced by a letter of defendant
(petitioner) to plaintiff (private respondent) (Exh. "4") does not warrant a showing of malice on the part
of defendant (petitioner).

xxx xxx xxx

Under the circumstances obtaining, considering that defendant's (petitioner's) actuation was not
attendant with bad faith, the award of moral damages in the amount of P40,000.00 is but just and fair.

Bad faith must be substantiated by evidence. In LBC vs. Court of Appeals,3 we ruled:

Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed; it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
Again, the unbroken jurisprudence is that in breach of contract cases where the defendant is not shown
to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation which the parties had foreseen or could reasonably have
foreseen. The damages, however, will not include liability far moral damages. (Citations omitted)

We can neither sustain the award of exemplary damages. The prerequisite for the award of exemplary damages in cases of contract
or quasi-contract4 is that the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.5 The undisputed
facts do not so warrant the characterization of the action of petitioner.

The award of attorney's fees must also be disallowed for lack of legal leg to stand on. The fact that private respondent was compelled

3
G.R. No. 108670, September 21, 1994.
4
Civil Code, Article 2232.
5
Albenson Enterprises Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, January 11, 1993.
to litigate and incur expenses to protect and enforce his claim did not justify the award of attorney's fees. The general rule is that
attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to
litigate.6 Petitioner is willing to pay the just claim of $200.00 as a result of the delay in the transportation of the luggage in accord with
the Warsaw Convention. Needless to say, the award of attorney's fees must be deleted where the award of moral and exemplary
damages are eliminated.

6
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of the Philippines vs. Ines Chaves, No.
L-17106, October 19, 1966.
 Year Case Title Summary Ruling Actual Moral Exemplary Attorneys
Damages Damages Damages Fees
2010 Air France v. That While respondent failed to cite
BONIFACIO H. respondent’s any act of discourtesy,
GILLEGO, G.R. checked-in discrimination or rudeness by
No. 165266, luggage was petitioner’s employees, this did
December 15, not found not make his loss and moral
2010. upon arrival suffering insignificant and less
at his deserving of compensation. In
destination repeatedly ignoring respondent’s
and was not inquiries, petitioner’s employees
returned to exhibited an indifferent attitude
him until without due regard for the
about two inconvenience and anxiety he
years later24 experienced after realizing that his
is not luggage was missing. Petitioner
disputed. The was thus guilty of bad faith in
action filed breaching its contract of carriage
by the with the respondent, which
respondent is entitles the latter to the award of
founded on moral damages.
such breach
of the The mere fact that respondent
contract of was a Congressman should not
carriage with result in an automatic increase in
petitioner the moral and exemplary damages
who offered recoverable. As held in Kierulf v.
no Court of Appeals,7 the social and
satisfactory financial standing of a claimant
explanation may be considered only if he or

7
G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343, March 13, 1997.
 for the she was subjected to
unreasonable contemptuous conduct despite
delay in the the offender’s knowledge of his or
delivery of her social and financial standing.8
respondent’s
baggage. The Where as in this case the air carrier
presumption failed to act timely on the
of negligence passengers predicament caused
was not by its employees mistake and
overcome by more than ordinary inadvertence
the or inattention, and the passenger
petitioner failed to show any act of
and hence its arrogance, discourtesy or
liability for rudeness committed by the air
the delay carriers employees, the amounts
was of P200,000.00, P50,000.00 and
sufficiently P30,000.00 as moral damages,
established. exemplary damages and attorneys
fees would be sufficient and
justified.9
2016 CATHAY PACIFIC However, the award of P5 million 500,000
AIRWAYS, LTD. as moral damages is excessive,
V. SPOUSES considering that the highest
ARNULFO AND amount ever awarded by this
EVELYN Court for moral damages in cases
FUENTEBELLA, G. involving airlines is P500,000.10 As

8
Id.
9
See Singson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119995, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 149.
10
In Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc, (150 Phil. 465 [1972]), this Court awarded moral damages amounting to P500,000 to a couple and their daughter
who were constrained to lake Third Class accommodation in lieu of the First Class passage they were entitled to, rudely addressed, publicly humiliated, cordoned
off by men in uniform as if they were criminals, referred to as monkeys, and off- loaded on a barren island.
 R. No. 188283, We said in Air France v. Gillego,11
July 20, 2016. the mere fact that respondent
was a Congressman should not
result in an automatic increase in
the moral and exemplary
damages."

We find that upon the facts

established, the amount of
P500,000 as moral damages is
reasonable to obviate the moral
suffering that respondents have
undergone. With regard to
exemplary damages,
jurisprudence shows that P50,000
is sufficient to deter similar acts of
bad faith attributable to airline
representatives.
2016 Alfredo S. P300,000.00 P300,000.00
Ramos, et al. Vs.
China Southern
Airlines Co. Ltd.,
G.R. No. 213418,
September 21,
2016.

In Japan Airlines v. Martinez (575 Phil. 359 [2008]), the Court awarded the same amount because of the humiliation and delay suffered by the plaintiff, who had
been wrongfully accused of falsification of travel documents and "haughtily ejected" from the plane infront of many passengers.

In Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Spouses Heshan (625 Phil. 304 [2010]), the same amount of moral damages was awarded because plaintiffs, who had confirmed
seats for the flight, were forced to board another airline due to overbooking.
11
653 Phil. 138(2010).
Delayed Baggage – Bad Faith (indifference), Amount of Damages
200,000 – Moral Damages
50,000 - Exemplary Damages
30,000 – Attorneys Fees
Air France v. BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO, G.R. No. 165266, December 15, 2010.

While respondent failed to cite any act of discourtesy, discrimination or rudeness by petitioner’s employees, this did not make his loss
and moral suffering insignificant and less deserving of compensation. In repeatedly ignoring respondent’s inquiries, petitioner’s
employees exhibited an indifferent attitude without due regard for the inconvenience and anxiety he experienced after realizing that
his luggage was missing. Petitioner was thus guilty of bad faith in breaching its contract of carriage with the respondent, which entitles
the latter to the award of moral damages.

The mere fact that respondent was a Congressman should not result in an automatic increase in the moral and exemplary damages
recoverable. As held in Kierulf v. Court of Appeals,12 the social and financial standing of a claimant may be considered only if he or she
was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his or her social and financial standing. 13

Where as in this case the air carrier failed to act timely on the passengers predicament caused by its employees mistake and more
than ordinary inadvertence or inattention, and the passenger failed to show any act of arrogance, discourtesy or rudeness committed
by the air carriers employees, the amounts of P200,000.00, P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees would be sufficient and justified.14

12
G.R. Nos. 99301 & 99343, March 13, 1997.
13
Id.
14
See Singson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119995, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 149.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 30, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56587 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees are hereby reduced to
P200,000.00, P50,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.
SPOUSES JESUS FERNANDO and ELIZABETH S. FERNANDO vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., G.R. No. 212038, February 8, 2017

The award of moral damages and attorney's fees are hereby increased to ₱3,000,000.00 and ten percent (10%) of the damages
awarded, respectively. Exemplary damages in the amount of ₱2,000,000.00 is also awarded. Costs against Northwest Airlines.

a.) The arrival at Los Angeles Airport on December 20, 2001

When Jesus Fernando presented his documents at the immigration counter, he was asked by the Immigration Officer to have his
return ticket verified and validated since the date reflected thereon is August 2001. So he approached a Northwest personnel who
was later identified as Linda Puntawongdaycha, but the latter merely glanced at his ticket without checking its status with the
computer and peremptorily said that the ticket has been used and could not be considered as valid. He then explained to the personnel
that he was about to use the said ticket on August 20 or 21, 2001 on his way back to Manila from LA but he could not book any seat
because of some ticket restrictions so he, instead, purchased new business class ticket on the said date.7 Hence, the ticket remains
unused and perfectly valid.
To avoid further arguments, Jesus Fernando gave the personnel the number of his Elite Platinum World Perks Card for the latter to
access the ticket control record with the airline's computer and for her to see that the ticket is still valid. But Linda Puntawongdaycha
refused to check the validity of the ticket in the computer but, instead, looked at Jesus Fernando with contempt, then informed the
Immigration Officer that the ticket is not valid because it had been used.8
The Immigration Officer brought Jesus Fernando to the interrogation room of the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) where
he was asked humiliating questions for more than two (2) hours. When he was finally cleared by the Immigration Officer, he was
granted only a twelve (12)-day stay in the United States (US), instead of the usual six (6) months.9
When Jesus Fernando was finally able to get out of the airport, to the relief of his family, Elizabeth Fernando proceeded to a Northwest
Ticket counter to verify the status of the ticket. The personnel manning the counter courteously assisted her and confirmed that the
ticket remained unused and perfectly valid. To avoid any future problems that may be encountered on the validity of the ticket, a new
ticket was issued to Jesus Fernando.10
Since Jesus Fernando was granted only a twelve (12)-day stay in the US, his scheduled plans with his family as well as his business
commitments were disrupted. He was supposed to stay with his family for the entire duration of the Christmas season because his
son and daughter were then studying at Pepperton University in California. But he was forced to fly back to Manila before the twelve
(12)-day stay expired and flew back to the US on January 15, 2002. The Fernandos were, likewise, scheduled to attend the Musical
Instrument Trade Show in LA on January 1 7, 2002 and the Sports Equipment Trade Show in Las Vegas on January 21 to 23, 2002 which
were both previously scheduled. Hence, Jesus Fernando had to spend additional expenses for plane fares and other related expenses,
and missed the chance to be with his family for the whole duration of the Christmas holidays. 11
b.) The departure from the Los Angeles Airport on January 29, 2002.
On January 29, 2002, the Fernandos were on their way back to the Philippines. They have confirmed bookings on Northwest Airlines
NW Flight No. 001 for Narita, Japan and NW 029 for Manila. They checked in with their luggage at the LA Airport and were given their
respective boarding passes for business class seats and claim stubs for six (6) pieces of luggage. With boarding passes, tickets and
other proper travel documents, they were allowed entry to the departure area and joined their business associates from Japan and
the Philippines who attended the Musical Instrument Trade Show in LA on January 17, 2002 and the Sports Equipment Trade Show in
Las Vegas on January 21 to 23, 2002. When it was announced that the plane was ready for boarding, the Fernandos joined the long
queue of business class passengers along with their business associates.12

When the Fernandos reached the gate area where boarding passes need to be presented, Northwest supervisor Linda Tang stopped
them and demanded for the presentation of their paper tickets (coupon type). They failed to present the same since, according to
them, Northwest issued electronic tickets (attached to the boarding passes) which they showed to the supervisor. 13 In the presence
of the other passengers, Linda Tang rudely pulled them out of the queue. Elizabeth Fernando explained to Linda Tang that the matter
could be sorted out by simply verifying their electronic tickets in her computer and all she had to do was click and punch in their Elite
Platinum World Perks Card number. But Linda Tang arrogantly told them that if they wanted to board the plane, they should produce
their credit cards and pay for their new tickets, otherwise Northwest would order their luggage off-loaded from the plane. Exasperated
and pressed for time, the Fernandos rushed to the Northwest Airline Ticket counter to clarify the matter. They were assisted by
Northwest personnel Jeanne Meyer who retrieved their control number from her computer and was able to ascertain that the
Fernandos' electronic tickets were valid and they were confirmed passengers on both NW Flight No. 001 for Narita Japan and NW 029
for Manila on that day. To ensure that the Fernandos would no longer encounter any problem with Linda Tang, Jeanne Meyer printed
coupon tickets for them who were then advised to rush back to the boarding gates since the plane was about to depart. But when the
Fernandos reached the boarding gate, the plane had already departed. They were able to depart, instead, the day after, or on January
30, 2002, and arrived in the Philippines on January 31,2002.14

We note that even if both the CA and the RTC ruled out bad faith on the part of Northwest, the award of "some moral damages" was
recognized. Both courts believed that considering that the Fernandos are good clients of Northwest for almost ten (10) years being
Elite Platinum World Perks Card holders, and are known in their business circle, they should have been given by Northwest the
corresponding special treatment.56 They own hotels and a chain of apartelles in the country, and a parking garage building in Indiana,
USA. From this perspective, We adopt the said view. We, thus, increase the award of moral damages to the Fernandos in the amount
of ₱3,000,000.00.
Exemplary damages, which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good, may be recovered in contractual
obligations, if defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.60 They are designed by our civil law
to permit the courts to reshape behavior that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents
against such behavior.61 Hence, given the facts and circumstances of this case, We hold Northwest liable for the payment of exemplary
damages in the amount of ₱2,000,000.00.

As to the payment of attorney's fees, We sustain the award thereof on the ground that the Fernandos were ultimately compelled to
litigate and incurred expenses to protect their rights and interests, and because the Fernandos are entitled to an award for
exemplary damages. Pursuant to Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees may be awarded when exemplary damages are
awarded, or a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest, or where the defendant acted in gross and
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim.

Records show that the Fernandos demanded payment for damages from Northwest even before the filing of this case in court.1âwphi1
Clearly, the Fernandos were forced to obtain the services of counsel to enforce a just claim, for which they should be awarded
attorney's fees.65 We deem it just and equitable to grant an award of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the damages awarded.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 30, 2013 and the Resolution dated March 31, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No.
93496 are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The award of moral damages and attorney's fees are hereby increased to
₱3,000,000.00 and ten percent (10%) of the damages awarded, respectively. Exemplary damages in the amount of ₱2,000,000.00 is
also awarded. Costs against Northwest Airlines.
BPI Investment Corporation v. D.G. Carreon Commercial Corporation, 422 Phil. 367, 379 (2001)

Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It
evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.16

In Singson v. Court of Appeals,17 we ruled that a carrier’s utter lack of care for and sensitivity to the needs of its passengers constitutes
gross negligence and is no different from fraud, malice or bad faith. Likewise, in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,18 we held
that a carrier’s inattention to, 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 and entitles the passenger to an award of moral damages.

16 BPI Investment Corporation v. D.G. Carreon Commercial Corporation, 422 Phil. 367, 379 (2001).
17 Supra note 15 at 163.
18 326 Phil. 823 (1996).
G.R. No. 156654 November 20, 2008
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner
vs.
VICENTE LOPEZ, JR., respondent.

Thus, citing Articles 173310 and 222011 of the Civil Code and the case of Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines,12 the trial court held
that the inattention and lack of care on the part of the common carrier, in this case PAL, resulting in the failure of the passenger to be
accommodated in the class contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud, making it liable for damages.13

12 No. L-28773, June 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 610.

13 Id. at 643-644.

As held in Alitalia Airways vs. CA, et al., 10 such inattention to and lack of care by petitioner airline 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.

10 G.R. No. 77011, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 763.

VICTORINO SAVELLANO, VIRGINIA B. SAVELLANO and DEOGRACIAS B. SAVELLANO, vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, G.R. No. 151783,
July 8, 2003.

In Lopez, Honorable Fernando Lopez, then an incumbent senator and former Vice President of the Philippines — together with his
wife, his daughter and his son-in-law — made first-class reservations with the Pan American World Airways on its Tokyo-San
Francisco flight. The reservation having been confirmed, first-class tickets were subsequently issued in their favor. Mistakenly,
however, defendant's agent cancelled the reservation. But expecting other cancellations before the flight scheduled a month later,
the reservations supervisor decided to withhold the information from them, with the result that upon arrival in Tokyo, the Lopezes
discovered they had no first-class accommodations. Thus, they were compelled to take the tourist class, just so the senator could be
on time for his pressing engagements in the United States.

In Zulueta, the passenger was coming home to Manila from Honolulu via a Pan-American flight. The plane had a stopover at Wake
Island, where Rafael Zulueta went down to relieve himself. At flight time, he could not be located immediately. Upon being found,
an altercation ensued between him and the Pan-Am employees. One of them remonstrated: "What in the hell do you think you are?
Get on that plane." An exchange of angry words followed, and the pilot went to the extent of referring to the Zuluetas as "those
monkeys." Subsequently, for his "belligerent" attitude, Rafael Zulueta was intentionally off-loaded and left at Wake Island with the
prospect of being stranded there for a week, with malice aforethought. The Court awarded to the Zuluetas P500,000.00 as moral
damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and P75,000.00 as attorney's fees, apart from the actual damages of P5,502.85.

In Ortigas, Francisco Ortigas Jr. had a confirmed and validated first-class ticket for Lufthansa's Flight No. 646. His reserved first class
seat was, however, given to a Belgian. As a result, he was forced to take economy class on the same flight. Lufthansa succeeded in
keeping him as a passenger by assuring him that he would be given first-class accommodation at the next stop. The proper
arrangements therefor had supposedly been made already, when in truth such was not the case. In justifying the award of moral
and exemplary damages, the Court explained.

" x x x [W]hen 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 the class contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud which entitles the passenger to the
award of moral damages in accordance with Article 2220 of the Civil Code. But in the instant case, the breach appears to be of
graver nature, since the preference given to the Belgian passenger over plaintiff was done willfully and in wanton disregard of
plaintiff's rights and his dignity as a human being and as a Filipino, who may not be discriminated against with impunity."
In Lopez despite sufficient time — one month — to inform the passengers of what had happened to their booking, the airline agent
intentionally withheld that information from them. In Zulueta, the passenger was deliberately off-loaded after being gravely insulted
during an altercation. And in Ortigas, the passenger was intentionally downgraded in favor of a European.

These cases are different from and inapplicable to the present case. Here, there is no showing that the breach of contract was done
with the same entrepreneurial motive or self-interest as in Lopez or with ill will as in Zulueta and Ortigas. Petitioners have failed to
show convincingly that they were rerouted by respondent to Los Angeles and Seoul because of malice, profit motive or self-interest.
Good faith is presumed, while bad faith is a matter of fact that needs to be proved 21 by the party alleging it.