Zulueta vs Pan-American Airways

8/19/2019 Zulueta vs Pan-American Airways

1/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]G.R. No. L-28589 February 29, 1972

RAFAEL ZULUETA, ET AL.,

plaini!"-appellee",

#".

$AN A%ER&'AN ()RL* A&R(A+, &N'., eenan-

appellan.

Appeal, taken by defendant Pan American World Airways,

Inc., from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,

sentencin said defendant to pay herein plainti!s "Rafael #ulueta, $elly Albert #ulueta and Carolinda #ulueta

" %the sum of P&,&'(.)&, as actual damaes* plus the

further sum of P+,''','''.'' as moral damaes* the

further sum of P'','''.'' as e-emplary damaes* and

attorneys fees in the sum of P+'','''.''% with the costs

aainst said defendant, hereinafter referred to as PA/A0

for the sake of bre1ity.

It is not disputed that, on 2ctober (3, +45, the spouse

Rafael #ulueta and $elly Albert #ulueta " hereinafter

referred to as plainti! and 0rs. #ulueta, respecti1ely " as

well as their dauhter, Carolinda #ulueta " hereinafter

referred to as 0iss #ulueta " were passeners aboard a

PA/A0 plane, on Fliht /o. )+6(3, from 7onolulu to

0anila, the 8rst le of which was Wake Island. As the

plane landed on said Island, the passeners were ad1ised

that they could disembark for a stopo1er of about 3'

minutes. 9hortly before reachin that place, the :iht

was, accordin to the plainti!s, %1ery rouh.% $estifyin for

PA/A0 its purser, 0iss 9chmitz, asserted, howe1er, that it

was %1ery calm%* but her notes, ;-hibit < " prepared

upon the re=uest of Captain #entner, on account of the

incident in1ol1ed in this case " state that there was

%unusually small amount of rouhness,% which 7is 7onor,

the $rial >ude, considered properly as %an admission that

there was rouhness, only the deree thereof is in

dispute.% In any e1ent, plainti! testi8ed that, ha1in found

the need to relie1e himself, he went to the mens comfort

room at the terminal buildin, but found it full of soldiers,in 1iew of which he walked down the beach some +''

yards away.

0eanwhile, the :iht was called and when the passeners

had boarded the plane, plainti!s absence was noticed.

$he take6o! was, accordinly, delayed and a search for

him was conducted by 0rs. #ulueta, 0iss #ulueta and

other persons. 0inutes later, plainti! was seen walkin

back from the beach towards the terminal. 7eadin

towards the ramp of the plane, plainti! remarked, %?ou

people almost made me miss your :iht. ?ou ha1e a

defecti1e announcin system and I was not paed.% At this

point, the decision appealed from has the followin to say@

+B Plainti!s were on their way to the plane in order to

board it, but defendants employees " enneth 9itton,

defendants airport manaer, accordin to plainti!s*

Wayne Pendleton, defendants airport customer ser1ice

super1isor, accordin to defendant " stopped them at the

ate. $his is what the report of Wayne Pendleton the

airport customer ser1ice super1isor, says@

...I made no comment to the passener but turned and led

the roup toward the ramp. >ust as we reached the

boardin ate, 0r. #ulueta spoke to me for the 8rst time

sayin, D?ou people almost made me miss your :iht. ?ou

ha1e a defecti1e announcin system and I was not

paed.%

I was about to make some reply when I noticed the

captain of the :iht standin on the ramp, midway

between the ate and the aircraft, and talkin with the

senior maintenance super1isor and se1eral other persons.

$he captain motioned for me to Eoin him which I

did, indicating to the Zulueta faily that they !hould "ait

fo# a oent at the gate$

66 Exh$ % .

(B $hereafter, one of defendants employees " 0r. 9itton,

accordin to plainti!s* 0r. Pendleton accordin to

defendants " asked plainti!s to turn o1er their baae

claim checks. Plainti!s did so, handin him four B claim

checks.

3B 7owe1er, only three 3B bas were located and

sereated from the rest of the passeners luae. $he

items hand6carried by plainti!s, e-cept for plainti!s

o1ercoat, were also brouht down. $hese hand6carried

items, howe1er, were not opened or inspected* later,

plainti!s 0rs. #ulueta and 0iss #ulueta were permitted toreboard the plane with their hand6carried luae* and

when the plane took o!, about two and a half hours later,

it carried plainti!s fourth ba, his o1ercoat and the hand6

carried luae.

B 2nce three bas had been identi8ed, and while the

search was oin on for the fourth ba, 0r. 9itton,

defendants airport manaer, demanded that plainti!s

open the bas actually, they were closed, but not lockedB

and allow defendants employees to inspect them. Plainti!

Rafael #ulueta refused and warned that defendant could

open the bas only by force and at its peril of a law suit.

&B 0r. 9itton, defendants manaer, then told plainti! thathe would not be allowed to proceed to 0anila on board

the plane and handed #ulueta the followin letters@

%( 2ctober +45

Wake Island

%0r. #ulueta@

Passener aboard :iht )+(3

7onolulu0anila .

9ir@

We are forced to o!6load you from :iht )+(3 due to the

fact that you ha1e refused to open your checked baae

for Inspection as re=uested.

Gurin your stay on Wake Island, which will be for a

minimum of one week, you will be chared H+3.3' per day

for each member of your party.

. 9itton

Airport 0anaer, Wake Island

Pan American World Airways, Inc.%

" Exh$ D

+


2/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]5B All this happened in plain 1iew and within earshot of

the other passeners on the plane, many of whom were

Filipinos who knew plainti!s*

$he departure of the plane was delayed for about two

hours

une +, ( and 3, +455. Ky subse=uent

areement of the parties, the hearin was, on >une 3,

+455, reset for Auust +, ( and 3, +455. Plainti!s rested

their case on Auust (, +455, whereupon it was areed

that PA/A0s witnesses would be presented %at a laterdate,% months later, because they would %come from far6

:un places like Wake Island, 9an Francisco, 9eattle and it

will take time to arrane for their comin here.%

Accordinly the case was reset for 2ctober +ohn C. Crai,

Ida M. Pomeroy, 7erman >a!e, Lerry Cowles and Col. /ilo

de Luia.

7is 7onor, the $rial >ude, did not commit a re1ersible

error in denyin said motion of 2ctober (', +455. PA/A0

knew, as early as Auust (, +455, that its turn to present

e1idence would take place, as areed upon, about two (B

months and a half later, or on 2ctober +


3/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]testi8ed for the defense + were belie1ed, by defense counsel, tobe enouh for the three 3B days of 2ctober set for the reception

of his e1idence (

" indicates that

no

e!ort whatsoe1er had been

made either to brin the %other witnesses% 3

or to take and submit

their depositions.

Kesides, the testimony alleedly e-pected of said other

witnesses for the defense " namely@ +B that there was,

accordin to oJcial records, no turbulence in the :iht

from 9an Francisco to 7onolulu, on which the testimony of

Carol 9chmitz had touched* (B that Ida M. Pomeroy and >ohn C. Crai would say that the passeners were ad1ised

not to o beyond the terminal and that the stopo1er would

be for about 3' minutes only, on which duration of the

stopo1er 0iss 9chmitz had, also testi8ed, as she could

ha1e similarly testi8ed on said ad1ice, had it been i1en*

3B that either 7ela 9chley or 9ue Welby would narrate

the sympathy with which 0rs. #ulueta was alleedly

treated durin the :iht from Wake Island to 0anila, which

is not particularly rele1ant or material in the case at bar*

B that 7erman >a!e, Lerry Cowles and /ilo de Luia

were, also, e-pected to corroborate the testimony of Capt.

#entner* and &B that ;dardo La1ino was e-pected to

corroborate 0ichael $homas reardin the remarks made

by the plainti! to 0rs. #ulueta and 0iss #ulueta whenthey and other members of the searchin party found him

in the early mornin of 2ctober (3, +45 66 were merely

cumulati1e in nature

$hen, aain, PA/A0 did not comply with section of Rule

(( of the Rules of Court, readin@

9;C. . Re&ui!ite! of otion to po!tpone t#ial fo# a'!ence

of e(idence. " A motion to postpone a trial on the round

of absence can be ranted only upon aJda1it showin the

materiality of e1idence e-pected to be obtained, and that

due dilience has been used to procure it. Kut if the

ad1erse party admits the facts to be i1en in e1idence,

e1en if he obEects or reser1es the riht to obEect to theiradmissibility, the trial must not be postponed.% .

Althouh this pro1ision refers to motions %to postpone

trial,% it applies with e=ual force to motions like the one

under consideration, there bein no plausible reason to

distinuish between the same and a motion for

postponement owin to the %absence of e1idence.%

$he second, third and fourth assinments of error are

interrelated. $hey refer to the =uestion whether the

reason why plainti! went to the beach was to relie1e

himself, as testi8ed to by him, or to remain in Wake Island

because he had =uarreled with his wife, as contended by

PA/A0s counsel.

$he latter contention howe1er, is utterly de1oid of merit.

$o bein with, plainti!s testimony about what he did upon

reachin the beach is uncontradicted. 9econdly, other

portions of his testimony " such as, for instance, that the

:iht was somewhat rouh, shortly before reachin Wake

Island* that there were =uite a number of soldiers in the

plane and, later, in the terminal buildin* that he did not

1oluntarily remain in Wake Island, but was %o!6loaded% by

PA/A0s aent therein " are borne out by the 1ery

e1idence for the defense. $hirdly, PA/A0s e!orts to show

that plainti! had decided to remain in the Island because

he had =uarreled with 0rs. #ulueta " which is ridiculous

" merely underscores the arti8cious nature of PA/A0s

contention.

Fourthly, there is absolutely no direct e1idence about said

alleed =uarrel. /obody testi8ed about it. )oun!el for the

defense has, in e!ect, merely concluded that the#e u!t

ha(e 'een such =uarrel because, when the searchin

party located plainti!, he " accordin to 9tanley 7o "

was %shoutin in a loud tone of 1oice% " not

at

his wife,but " %to"a#d! his wife and daughte#*% who headed said

party and to which the words spoken were addressed,

accordin to plainti!. Capt. #entner said that plainti! was

%anry with the% " 0rs. #ulueta and Mi!! Zulueta " who

0ichael $homas aJrmed " were sayin %I am sorry, I am

sorry%* whereas, Wayne 9. Pendleton declared that La1ino

told him that this %!ee! to stem from a domestic issue%

between 0r. and 0rs. #ulueta. 9urely, this alleed

surmise, not e1en by Pendleton but by La1ino " who was

not placed on the witness stand " cannot be taken as

competent e1idence that plainti! had =uarreled with his

wife, apart from the circumstance that such =uarrel " if it

took place and the#e i! a'!olutely no e(idence o# o+e# to

p#o(e that anything had t#an!pi#ed 'et"een hu!'and and

"ife 'efo#e #eaching ,a-e .!land which may suest a

misunderstandin between them " does not warrant

Eumpin at the conclusion that plainti! had decided to

remain in the Island, for he would ain nothin thereby.

/eedless to say, if plainti!s purpose in oin to the beach

was to hide from 0rs. and 0iss #ulueta and PA/A0s

personnel, so that he may be left in the Island, he, surely,

would not ha1e walked back from the beach to the

terminal, before the plane had resumed its :iht to

0anila, thereby e-posin his presence to the full 1iew of

those who were lookin for him.

$hen, aain, the words uttered by him as he saw the

search party and approached the plane " %?ou peoplealmost made me miss your :iht. ?ou ha1e a defecti1e

announcin system and I was not paed% " and the

%bellierent% manner " accordin to Captain #entner " in

which he said it re1ealed his feelin of distress at the

thouht that the plane could ha1e left without him.

$he second, third and fourth assinments of error are thus

clearly untenable.

In connection with the 8fth assinment of error, PA/A0s

witness, Captain #entner, testi8ed that, while he was

outside the plane, waitin for the result of the search, a

%man% approached him and e-pressed concern o1er the

situation* that the %man% said he was with the 9tateGepartment* that he, his wife and their children, who were

on board the aircraft, would not want to continue the :iht

unless the missin person was found* that the %man%

e-pressed fear of a %bomb,% a word he used reluctantly,

because he knew it is 1iolati1e of a Federal law when said

at the wron time* that when plainti! came, #entner

asked him@ %why did you not want to et on the

airplaneN%* that plainti! then became %1ery anry% and

spoke to him %in a way I ha1e not been spoken to in my

whole adult life%* that the witness e-plained@ %I am

Captain of the aircraft and it is my duty to see to the

:ihts safety%* that he #entnerB then told Wayne

3


4/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]Pendleton " PA/A0s Customer 9er1ice 9uper1isor " to

et plainti!s %bas o! the plane to 1erify ... about the

bomb%* that PA/A0s airport manaer . 9ittonB %ot

three bas of 0r. #ulueta%* that his fourth ba could not

be located despite a thorouh search* that belie1in that

it must ha1e been left behind, in 7onolulu, %we took o!%*

and that he #entnerB would not ha1e done so had he

thouht it was still aboard.

$he lower court did not err in i1in no credence to thistestimony.

Indeed, Captain #entner did not e-plain why he seeminly

assumed that the alleed apprehension of his informant

was Eusti8ed. 7e did not ask the latter whether he knew

anythin in particular about plainti! herein, althouh

some members of the crew would appear to ha1e a notion

that plainti! is an impresario. Plainti! himself intimated to

them that he was well known to the .9. 9tate

Gepartment. Apparently, Captain #entner did not e1en

know the informants name. /either did the captain know

whether the informant was really workin for or in the

9tate Gepartment. In other words, there was nothin "

absolutely nothin " to Eustify the belief that the luae

of the missin person should be searched, in order to

ascertain whether there was a bomb in it* that, otherwise,

his presence in the aircraft would be inimical to its safety*

and that, conse=uently, he should be o!6loaded.

In fact, PA/A0 has not i1en the name of that %man% of

the 9tate Gepartment. /either has the defense tried to

e-plain such omission. 9urely, PA/A0s records would

ha1e disclosed the identity of said %man,% if he were not a

mere 8ment of the imaination. $he list of passeners

has been marked as ;-h. A, and yet PA/A0 has not

pointed out who amon them is the aforementioned

%man%.

$he trial court did not belie1e the testimony of Captain#entner and reEected the theory of the defense, for the

followin reasons@

+B $he defendant had contracted to transport plainti!

from 7onolulu to 0anila. It was its leal obliation to do

so, and it could be e-cused from complyin with the

obliation only, if the passener had refused to continue

with the trip or it had become leally or physically

impossible without the carriers fault, to transport him.

(B In this case, it is plain that #ulueta was desirous of

continuin with the trip. Althouh defendants witnesses

claim that #ulueta refused to board the plane, its own

e1idence belies this claim. $he letter, ;-h. %G%, shows thatit was defendant who o!6loaded #ulueta* not #ulueta who

resisted from continuin the trip. In his testimony before

the Court, Capt. #entner, defendants pilot, said that if a

passener 1oluntarily left the plane, the term used would

be Ddesistance but the term %o!6load% means that it is the

decision of the Captain not to allow the passener or

luae to continue the :iht. 7owe1er, Capt. #entner

admitted on his testimony that %his drunkenness... was of

no conse=uence in my report* itB ... had nothin to do

with his bein bellierent and unfriendly in his attitude

towards me and the rest of the members of the crew.% $he

written report of Capt. #entner made in transit from Wake

to 0anila %intimated he miht possibly continue*% but %due

to drinkin, bellierent attitude, he was o!6loaded alon

with his locked bas.% ;-h. +'B. In a later report, #entner

admitted, %The deci!ion to lea(e M#$ Zulueta and hi!

loc-ed luggage in ,a-e "a! ine and alone.% ;-h. 4B.

Gefendants airport customer ser1ice super1isor, W.9.

Pendleton, reported that@

%After the search for 0r. #ulueta had continued almost ('

minutes and it was apparent that he was not be found inthe terminal buildin or immediate 1icinity, I proceeded to

the parkin lot and picked up my Eeep continue the search

in more remote areas. >ust as I was ettin underway, a

small roup of persons approach from the direction of the

beach and a 1oice called out the passener had been

found. 7a1in parked the Eeep aain, I walked toward the

roup and was met by PAA :eet6ser1iceman ;. La1ino

who was walkin somewhere ahead of the others. 0r.

La1ino remarked to me pri1ately that the trouble seemed

to ha1e stemmed from some domestic di!erence between

the Passener and his wife who was not at his side and

returnin with him to the ate.

%2n hearin 0r. La1inos remark, I made no comment to

the passener but turned and led the roup toward the

ramp. /u!t a! "e #eached the 'oa#ding gate* M#$ Zulueta

!po-e to e fo# the 0#!t tie !aying* 12ou people alo!t

ade e i!! you# 3ight$ 2ou ha(e a defecti(e

announcing !y!te and . "a! not paged.%

" ;-h. &

;1idently, these could not ha1e been the words of a man

who refused to board the plane.

3B $here was no leal or physical impossibility for

defendant to transport plainti! #ulueta from Wake to

0anila as it had contracted to do. Gefendant claims that

the safety of its craft and of the other passenersdemanded that it inspect #uluetas luae and when he

refused to allow inspection that it had no recourse but to

lea1e him behind. $he truth that, knowin that of

plainti!s four pieces of luae, one could still ha1e been

" as it was " aboard, defendants plane still :ew on to

0anila. 9urely, if the defendants pilot and employees

really belie1ed that #ulueta had planted a bomb in one of

the bas they would not ha1e :own on until they had

made sure that the fourth ba had been left behind at

7onolulu until enouh time had lapsed for the bomb to

ha1e been e-ploded, since presumably it had to ha1e

been set to o o! before they reached 0anila.

%At any rate, it was =uite e1ident that #ulueta had nothinto hide* for the report of defendants witness, 0r. 9tanley

;. 7o, .9. 0arshall on Wake, has this to say@ %

%About twenty minutes later while an attempt was bein

made to locate another piece of 0r. #uluetas luae his

dauhter, Carolinda approached her father and wanted to

et some clothes from one of the suitcases. 0r. #ulueta

asked the undersined if it was alriht if he opened the

suitcases and et the necessary clothes. $o this I stated

he was free to open his luae and obtain whate1er he

needed. 0r. #ulueta opened a suitcase and took the dress

for her then boarded the aircraft.%


5/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]" ;-h. (K .

B What is e1ident to the Court is that defendant " acted

in a manner deliberately calculated to humiliate and

shame plainti!s. Althouh the plane was held up to wait

for plainti! " for, as the Captain admitted in his

testimony, he did so because he knew that it would be a

week before another plane would come in for 0anila

t.s.n., +) 2ct. +455, pp. &465(B when plainti! did come,

he was met and treated rouhly by defendants manaer9itton. 7ere is what #ulueta testi8ed to@

%O. " When you saw your wife and dauhter what

happenedN A. " $hen I started oin towards the

airplane. At the ramp, I do not know what they call it, as

soon as they arri1ed there, there was a man who

subse=uently identi8ed himself as enneth 9itton. 7e

identi8ed himself as the Airport 0anaer of Wake Island.

7e did not ask me what happened, was I sick, he looked at

me and said, what in the hell do you think you areN Let on

that plane. $hen I said, what riht ha1e you to talk to me

that way, I am a payin passener. Go not treat me this

way. And this started the altercation, and then he said, do

you know you held up the planeN And I answered, this is

not my fault, I was sick. Gid it not occur to you to ask me

how I feel* then he said et on that plane.

%O. " What happenedN A. " we started discussin kept

sayin, %?ou et on that plane% and then I said, %I dont

ha1e to et on that plane.% After a proloned discussion,

he said, i1e me your baae tas and I a1e him four

baae tickets or tas. I did not realize what he was up

to until 8nally, I saw people comin down the airplane and

police cars arri1ed and people were comin down the

ramp. I a1e him the four baae tas and a few

minutes late, he brouht three baaes and said, open

them up. I said, to bein with, there is one baae

missin and that missin ba is my ba. $hen I said you

cannot make me open these baaes unless you arenited 9tates customs authorities and when I arri1e in the

Philippines they can be opened by the Philippine Customs

authorities. Kut an Airport 0anaer cannot make me open

my bas unless you do e-actly the same thin to all the

passeners. 2pen the bas of all the other passeners

and I will open my ba.

%O. " What did he say@ A. " 7e Eust kept on sayin open

your ba, and I drew up my hands and said, you want, you

open yourself or i1e me a search warrant I shall open this

ba but i1e me a search warrant and then I asked, who is

the Chief of Police, and he said, %I am Chief of Police,%

then I said how can you be the Chief Police and Airport

0anaer and then he started to talk about doublecompensation and by this time we were both =uarrelin

and he was shoutin and so with me. $hen there was a

man who came around and said Dopen the ba and I said,

show the warrant of arrest and do all the checkin and the

discussion kept on oin, and 8nally I said look, my fourth

ba is missin and he said, %I dont i1e damn.% People at

the time were surroundin us and starin at us and also

the passeners. 0y wife and dauhter all alon had been

made to sit on a railin and this man screamin and

lookin at my wife and dauhter. $hen he said, will you

pull these three monkeys out of hereN then I said, will you

send my wife and dauhter up the plane which he did.

7owe1er, they ha1e come down in their slippers and when

they were allowed to return to the plane none of the

defendants personnel who had brouht down the

o1ercoats, shoes and handcarried items of my wife and

dauhter e1er o!ered to brin back the items to the

plane, until I demanded that one of the defendants should

help my wife and dauhter which he did. And then one

man told me, because you refused to open your ba, %we

shall hold you here in Wake Island.% then I asked, are weunder arrestN and the man answered, no. And further

stated, your wife and dauhter can continue their :iht

but you will not o to this :iht an we will chare you

H+3.3' a day. $hen I said, who are you to tell all these

thins, and he answered, I am the manaer. I said, put it

in writin, then left and in few minutes he came back and

handed me this letter witness referrin to ;-hibit GB.% .

" t$!$n$* Augu!t 4* 4955* pp$ 4%674

Anyone in #uluetas position would ha1e reached the

same way if he had had a sense of dinity. ;1idently,

anered by #uluetas reaction, irked by the delay he had

caused them, defendants employees decided to teach

him a lesson by forcin him to open his bas when there

was no Eusti8able reason to do so@

aB Gefendant did not make any attempt to in=uire from

any passener or e1en the crew who knew 0r. #ulueta

what his character and reputation are, before demandin

that he open the bas* if it had done so, 0iss 9chmitz, the

purser, and Col. Millamor would ha1e 1ouched for

plainti!s* for 0iss 9chmitz belie1ed she had :own before

with the #uluetas and they had been 1ery nice people.

bB Worse, defendants manaer 9itton admits that

#ulueta had told him who he was and his social position in

0anila* still he insisted that the bas be opened.

0oreo1er, some passeners had informed the super1isorthat #ulueta was %the impresario%* but they persisted in

their demands.

cB Gefendant ne1er identi8ed the alleed 9tate

Gepartment men who reportedly approached the Captain

and e-pressed fear about a bomb, nor did they confront

him " if he e-isted with 0r. #ulueta despite 0r. #uluetas

re=uest.

dB Gefendant did not take any steps to put the luae

o!6loaded far from its passeners and plane, a strane

procedure if it really belie1ed the luae contained a

bomb*

eB Gefendant continued with the :iht knowin one ba 66

#uluetas ba himself " had not been located and without

1erifyin from 7onolulu if the ba had been found there,

nor e1en ad1isin 7onolulu that a ba possibly containin

a bomb had been left there, aain an ine-plicable

procedure if they sincerely belie1ed that #ulueta had

planted a bomb*

fB Gefendants manaer himself took #ulueta and his o!6

loaded bas, in his own car, from the terminal buildin to

the hotel, which is also inconsistent with a serious belief

that the luaes contained a bomb*

&


6/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]B Gefendant knew that while #uluetas bas were on the

round, he had opened one of them with the permission

and in the presence of the . 9. 0arshall in order to

enable his dauhter to et a dress from the ba* nothin

suspicious was seen* still, defendant insisted on refusin

to allow #ulueta to continue unless he opened and

allowed inspection of the bas by them* .

hB Gefendant completely chaned his tone and beha1ior

towards the #uluetas after the plane had arri1ed at0anila and the Captain learned that its 0anila manaer,

0r. 2ppenheimer, was a friend of #ulueta*

iB 0eantime, the attitude of Pan American towards the

#uluetas caused other passeners to resent #ulueta 9ee

reports of 9tewardesses and of Captain #entner, ;-hs.


7/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text] $his responsibility applies to common carriers. Pursuant to

Article +


8/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text] $he =uestion is whether the award of P+,''',''' as moral

damaes was proper and Eusti8ed by the circumstances. It

has been held that the discretion in 8-in moral damaes

lies in the trial court. +( Amon the factors courts take into

account in assessin moral damaes are the professional,

social, political and 8nancial standin of the o!ended

parties on one hand, and the business and 8nancial

position of the o!ender on the other. +3

In comparati1ely recent cases in this Eurisdiction, alsoin1ol1in breach of contract of air carriae, this Court

awarded the amount of P(&,''', where plainti!, a 8rst6

class passener in an Air France plane from 0anila to

Rome was, in Kankok, forced by the manaer of the

airline company to lea1e his 8rst class accommodation

after he was already seated because there was a white

man who, the manaer alleed, had a %better riht% to the

seat+ *the amount of P('',''', where plainti!s, uponcon8rmation of their reser1ation in defendant airlines :iht from

$okyo to 9an Francisco were issued 8rst class tickets, but upon

arri1al in $okyo were informed that there was no accommodation

for them in the 8rst class compartment and told they could not o

unless they took the tourist class

+&

" in both of which cases the

Court found the airline companies to ha1e acted in bad faith, or in

a wanton, reckless and oppressi1e manner, Eustifyin likewise the

award of e-emplary damaes.

/one of the passeners in1ol1ed in said cases was,

howe1er, o!6loaded, much less in a place as barren and

isolated as Wake Island, with the prospect of bein

stranded there for a week. $he aforementioned

passeners were merely constrained to take a tourist or

third class accommodation in lieu of the 8rst class

passae they were entitled to. $hen, also, in none of said

cases had the aents of the carrier acted with the deree

of malice or bad faith of those of PA/A0 in the case at

bar, or caused to the o!ended passeners a mental

su!erin arisin from inEuries to feelins, friht and shock

due to abusi1e, rude and insultin lanuae used by the

carriers employees in the presence and within thehearin of others, comparable to that caused by PA/A0s

employees to plainti!s herein

$o some e-tent, howe1er, plainti! had contributed to the

ra1ity of the situation because of the e-treme

bellierence with which he had reacted on the occasion.

We do not o1er6look the fact that he Eustly belie1ed he

should uphold and defend his dinity and that of the

people of this country that the discomfort, the diJculties,

and, perhaps, the ordeal throuh which he had one to

relie1e himself " which were unknown to PA/A0s aents

" were such as to put him in no mood to be

understandin of the shortcomin of others* and that said

PA/A0 aents should ha1e 8rst in=uired, with an openmind, about the cause of his delay instead of assumin

that he was at fault and of takin an arroant and

o1erbearin attitude, as if they were dealin with an

inferior. >ust the same, there is e1ery reason to belie1e

that, in all probability, thins would not ha1e turned out as

bad as they became had he not allowed himself, in a way,

to be draed to the le1el or plane on which PA/A0s

personnel had placed themsel1es.

In 1iew of this circumstance, We feel that the moral and

e-emplary damaes collectible by the plainti!s should be

reduced to one6half of the amounts awarded by the lower

court, that is, to P&'',''' for moral damaes, and

P('',''' for e-emplary damaes, aside from the

attorneys fees which should, likewise, be reduced to

P


9/9

9 TORTS AND DAMAGES [Type text]preEudice to deductin the aforementioned sum of

P&',''' already paid 0rs. #ulueta, the decision appealed

from is hereby aJrmed in all other respects, with the

costs aainst said defendant.

Reye!* /$8$$* Ma-alintal* Zaldi(a#* :e#nando* 8a##edo*

;illao# and Ma-a!ia#* //$* concu#$

)a!t#o and Teehan-ee* //$* too- no pa#t$

4

Zulueta vs Pan-American Airways

Documents

Transcript of Zulueta vs Pan-American Airways