Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993 PH L PP NE ! RL NES, NC., petitioner, vs. COURT O" !PPE!LS #$% PE&RO '!P!TOS, respondents. Leighton R. Liazon for petitioner. Balmes L. Ocampo for private respondent.

(ELLOS LLO, J.: This petition for revie in certiorari see!s to annul and set aside the decision of the then Inter"ediate #ppellant $ourt, 1no $ourt of #ppeals, dated %& Februar' ()&*, in #$+,.R. $V No. -).%/ 01Pedro 2apatos v. Philippine #irlines, Inc.13 affir"in4 the decision of the then $ourt of first Instance, no Re4ional Trial $ourt, declarin4 Philippine #irlines, Inc., liable in da"a4es for breach of contract. On %* Nove"ber ()/-, private respondent filed a co"plaint for da"a4es for breach of contract of carria4e 2 a4ainst Philippine #irlines, Inc. 0P#53, before the then $ourt of First Instance, no Re4ional Trial $ourt, of Misa"is Occidental, at O6a"i6 $it'. #ccordin4 to hi", on % #u4ust ()/-, he as a"on4 the t ent'+one 0%(3 passen4ers of P#5 Fli4ht 7// that too! off fro" $ebu bound for O6a"i6 $it'. The routin4 of this fli4ht as $ebu+O6a"i6+$otabato. 8hile on fli4ht and 9ust about fifteen 0(*3 "inutes before landin4 at O6a"i6 $it', the pilot received a radio "essa4e that the airport as closed due to heav' rains and incle"ent eather and that he should proceed to $otabato $it' instead. :pon arrival at $otabato $it', the P#5 Station #4ent infor"ed the passen4ers of their options to return to $ebu on fli4ht *-; of the sa"e da' and thence to O6a"i6 $it' on 7 #u4ust ()/*, or ta!e the ne<t fli4ht to $ebu the follo in4 da', or re"ain at $otabato and ta!e the ne<t available fli4ht to O6a"i6 $it' on * #u4ust ()/*. 3 The Station #4ent li!e ise infor"ed the" that Fli4ht *-; bound for Manila ould "a!e a stop+over at $ebu to brin4 so"e of the diverted passen4ers= that there ere onl' si< 0-3 seats available as there ere alread' confir"ed passen4ers for Manila= and, that the basis for priorit' ould be the chec!+in se>uence at $ebu. Private respondent chose to return to $ebu but as not acco""odated because he chec!ed+in as passen4er No. ) on Fli4ht 7//. ?e insisted on bein4 4iven priorit' over the confir"ed passen4ers in the acco""odation, but the Station #4ent refused private respondent@s de"and e<plainin4 that the latter@s predica"ent as not due to P#5@s o n doin4 but to be aforce majeure. ) Private respondent tried to stop the departure of Fli4ht *-; as his personal belon4in4s, includin4 a pac!a4e containin4 a ca"era hich a certain Mi a fro" Aapan as!ed hi" to deliver to Mrs. Fe Obid of ,in4oo4 $it', ere still on board. ?is plea fell on deaf ears. P#5 then issued to private respondent a free tic!et to Ili4an cit', hich the latter received

under protest. 5Private respondent as left at the airport and could not even hitch a ride in the Ford Fiera loaded ith P#5 personnel. 6 P#5 neither provided private respondent ith transportation fro" the airport to the cit' proper nor food and acco""odation for his sta' in $otabato $it'. The follo in4 da', private respondent purchased a P#5 tic!et to Ili4an $it'. ?e infor"ed P#5 personnel that he ould not use the free tic!et because he as filin4 a case a4ainst P#5. * In Ili4an $it', private respondent hired a car fro" the airport to Bola"bu4an, 5anao del Norte, reachin4 O6a"i6 $it' b' crossin4 the ba' in a launch. 8 ?is personal effects includin4 the ca"era, hich ere valued at P%,;;;.;; ere no lon4er recovered. On (. Aanuar' ()//, P#5 filed its ans er den'in4 that it un9ustifiabl' refused to acco""odate private respondent. 9 It alle4ed that there as si"pl' no "ore seat for private respondent on Fli4ht *-; since there ere onl' si< 0-3 seats available and the priorit' of acco""odation on Fli4ht *-; as based on the chec!+in se>uence in $ebu= that the first si< 0-3 priorit' passen4ers on Fli4ht 7// chose to ta!e Fli4ht *-;= that its Station #4ent e<plained in a courteous and polite "anner to all passen4ers the reason for P#5@s inabilit' to transport all of the" bac! to $ebu= that the stranded passen4ers a4reed to avail of the options and had their respective tic!ets e<chan4ed for their on ard trips= that it as onl' the private respondent ho insisted on bein4 4iven priorit' in the acco""odation= that pieces of chec!ed+in ba44a4e and had carried ite"s of the O6a"i6 $it' passen4ers ere re"oved fro" the aircraft= that the reason for their pilot@s inabilit' to land at O6a"is $it' airport as because the run a' as et due to rains thus posin4 a threat to the safet' of both passen4ers and aircraft= and, that such reason of force majeure as a valid 9ustification for the pilot to b'pass O6a"i6 $it' and proceed directl' to $otabato $it'. On 7 Aune ()&(, the trial court rendered its decision statesC
1+

the dispositive portion of hich

8?DRDFORD, 9ud4"ent is hereb' rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a4ainst the defendant Philippine #ir5ines, Inc. orderin4 the latter to pa'C 0(3 #s actual da"a4es, the su" of T o ?undred Pesos 0P%;;.;;3 representin4 plaintiff@s e<penses for transportation, food and acco""odation durin4 his stranded sta' at $otabato $it'= the su" of Fort'+Di4ht Pesos 0P7&.;;3 representin4 his fli4ht fare fro" $otabato $it' to Ili4an cit'= the su" of Five ?undred Pesos 0P*;;.;;3 representin4 plaintiff@s transportation e<penses fro" Ili4an $it' to O6a"i6 $it'= and the su" of Five Thousand Pesos 0P*,;;;.;;3 as loss of business opportunities durin4 his stranded sta' in $otabato $it'= 0%3 #s "oral da"a4es, the su" of Fift' Thousand Pesos 0P*;,;;;.;;3 for plaintiff@s hurt feelin4s, serious an<iet', "ental an4uish and un!ind and discourteous treat"ent perpetrated b' defendant@s e"plo'ees durin4 his sta' as stranded passen4er in $otabato $it'= 0.3 #s e<e"plar' da"a4es, the su" of Ten Thousand Pesos 0P(;,;;;.;;3 to set a precedent to the defendant airline that it shall provide "eans to 4ive co"fort and convenience to stranded passen4ers= 073 The su" of Three Thousand Pesos 0P.,;;;.;;3 as attorne'@s fees= 0*3 To pa' the costs of this suit. P#5 appealed to the $ourt of #ppeals hich on %& Februar' ()&*, findin4 no reversible error, affir"ed the 9ud4"ent of the court a quo. 11

P#5 then sou4ht recourse to this $ourt b' a' of a petition for revie on certiorari 12 upon the follo in4 issuesC 0(3 $an the $ourt of #ppeals render a decision findin4 petitioner 0then defendant+appellant in the court belo 3 ne4li4ent and, conse>uentl', liable for da"a4es on a >uestion of substance hich as neither raised on a >uestion nor proved at the trialE 0%3 $an the $ourt of #ppeals a ard actual and "oral da"a4es contrar' to the evidence and established 9urisprudenceE 13 #n assiduous e<a"ination of the records 'ields no valid reason for reversal of the 9ud4"ent on appeal= onl' a "odification of its disposition. In its petition, P#5 vi4orousl' "aintains that private respondent@s principal cause of action as its alle4ed denial of private respondent@s de"and for priorit' over the confir"ed passen4ers on Fli4ht *-;. 5i!e ise, P#5 points out that the co"plaint did not i"pute to P#5 ne4lect in failin4 to attend to the needs of the diverted passen4ers= and, that the >uestion of ne4li4ence as not and never put in issue b' the pleadin4s or proved at the trial. $ontrar' to the above ar4u"ents, private respondent@s a"ended co"plaint touched on P#5@s indifference and inattention to his predica"ent. The pertinent portion of the a"ended co"plaint 1) readsC (;. That b' virtue of the refusal of the defendant throu4h its a4ent in $otabato to acco""odate 0sic3 and allo the plaintiff to ta!e and board the plane bac! to $ebu, and b' acco"odatin4 0sic3 and allo in4 passen4ers fro" $otabato for $ebu in his stead and place, thus forcin4 the plaintiff a4ainst his ill, to be left and stranded in $otabato, e<posed to the peril and dan4er of "usli" rebels plunderin4 at the ti"e, the plaintiff, as a conse>uence, 0have3 suffered "ental an4uish, "ental torture, social hu"iliation, bis"irched reputation and ounded feelin4, all a"ountin4 to a conservative a"ount of thirt' thousand 0P.;,;;;.;;3 Pesos. To substantiate this aspect of apath', private respondent testified
15

# I did not even notice that I as I thin! the last passen4er or the last person out of the P#5 e"plo'ees and ar"' personnel that ere left there. I did not notice that hen I as alread' outside of the buildin4 after our conversation. F 8hat did 'ou do ne<tE # I banished 0sic3 because it see"s that there as a ar not far fro" the airport. The sound of 4uns and the soldiers ere plent'. F #fter that hat did 'ou doE # I tried to loo! for a transportation that could brin4 "e do n to the $it' of $otabato. F 8ere 'ou able to 4o thereE # I as at about /C;; o@cloc! in the evenin4 "ore or less and it as a private 9eep that I boarded. I as even >uestioned h' I and ho a" 0sic3 I then. Then I

e<plained "' side that I a" 0sic3 stranded passen4er. Then the' brou4ht "e do nto n at $otabato. F Durin4 'our conversation ith the Mana4er ere 'ou not offered an' vehicle or transportation to $otabato airport do nto nE # In fact I told hi" 0Mana4er3 no I a" b'+passed passen4er here hich is not "' destination hat can 'ou offer "e. Then the' ans ered, 1it is not "' fault. 5et us for4et that.1 F In other ords hen the Mana4er told 'ou that offer as there a vehicle read'E # Not 'et. Not lon4 after that the Ford Fiera loaded ith P#5 personnel as passin4 b' 4oin4 to the $it' of $otabato and I stopped it to ta!e "e a ride because there as no "ore available transportation but I as not acco""odated. Si4nificantl', P#5 did not see" to "ind the introduction of evidence hich focused on its alle4ed ne4li4ence in carin4 for its stranded passen4ers. 8ell+settled is the rule in evidence that the protest or ob9ection a4ainst the ad"ission of evidence should be presented at the ti"e the evidence is offered, and that the proper ti"e to "a!e protest or ob9ection to the ad"issibilit' of evidence is hen the >uestion is presented to the itness or at the ti"e the ans er thereto is 4iven. 16There bein4 no ob9ection, such evidence beco"es propert' of the case and all the parties are a"enable to an' favorable or unfavorable effects resultin4 fro" the evidence. 1* P#5 instead atte"pted to rebut the afore>uoted testi"on'. In the process, it failed to substantiate its counter alle4ation for ant of concrete proof 18 G #tt'. Rubin O. Rivera G P#5@s counselC F Hou said P#5 refused to help 'ou $otabato, is that ri4htE Private respondentC # Hes. F Did 'ou as! the" to help 'ou re4ardin4 an' offer of transportation or of an' other "atter as!ed of the"E # Hes, he 0P#5 PDRSONND53 said hat isE It is not our fault. F #re 'ou not a are that one fello passen4er even clai"ed that he as 4iven ?otel acco""odation because the' have no "one'E <<< <<< <<< hen 'ou ere in

# No, sir, that as never offered to "e. I said, I tried to stop the" but the' ere alread' ridin4 that P#5 pic!+up 9eep, and I as not acco""odated. ?avin4 9oined in the issue over the alle4ed lac! of care it e<hibited to ards its passen4ers, P#5 cannot no turn around and fei4n surprise at the outco"e of the case. 8hen issues not raised b' the pleadin4s are tried b' e<press or i"plied consent of the parties, the' shall be treated in all respects as if the' had been raised in the pleadin4s. 19 8ith re4ard to the a ard of da"a4es affir"ed b' the appellate court, P#5 ar4ues that the sa"e is unfounded. It asserts that it should not be char4ed ith the tas! of loo!in4 after the passen4ers@ co"fort and convenience because the diversion of the fli4ht as due to a fortuitous event, and that if "ade liable, an added burden is 4iven to P#5 hich is over and be'ond its duties under the contract of carria4e. It sub"its that 4rantin4 arguendo that ne4li4ence e<ists, P#5 cannot be liable in da"a4es in the absence of fraud or bad faith= that private respondent failed to apprise P#5 of the nature of his trip and possible business losses= and, that private respondent hi"self is to be bla"ed for unreasonabl' refusin4 to use the free tic!et hich P#5 issued. The contract of air carria4e is a peculiar one. Iein4 i"bued ith public interest, the la re>uires co""on carriers to carr' the passen4ers safel' as far as hu"an care and foresi4ht can provide, usin4 the ut"ost dili4ence of ver' cautious persons, ith due re4ard for all the circu"stances. 2+ In Air France v. Carrascoso, 21 e held that G # contract to transport passen4ers is >uite different in !ind and de4ree fro" an' other contractual relation. #nd this, because of the relation hich an air carrier sustains ith the public. Its business is "ainl' ith the travellin4 public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carria4e, therefore, 4enerates a relation attended ith a public dut' . . . . 0 e"phasis supplied3. The position ta!en b' P#5 in this case clearl' illustrates its failure to 4rasp the e<actin4 standard re>uired b' la . :ndisputabl', P#5@s diversion of its fli4ht due to incle"ent eather as a fortuitous event. Nonetheless, such occurrence did not ter"inate P#5@s contract ith its passen4ers. Iein4 in the business of air carria4e and the sole one to operate in the countr', P#5 is dee"ed e>uipped to deal ith situations as in the case at bar. 8hat e said in one case once a4ain "ust be stressed, i.e., the relation of carrier and passen4er continues until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left the carrier@s pre"ises. 22 ?ence, P#5 necessaril' ould still have to e<ercise e<traordinar' dili4ence in safe4uardin4 the co"fort, convenience and safet' of its stranded passen4ers until the' have reached their final destination. On this score, P#5 4rossl' failed considerin4 the then on4oin4 battle bet een 4overn"ent forces and Musli" rebels in $otabato $it' and the fact that the private respondent as a stran4er to the place. #s the appellate court correctl' ruled G 8hile the failure of plaintiff in the first instance to reach his destination at O6a"is $it' in accordance ith the contract of carria4e as due to the closure of the airport on account of rain and incle"ent eather hich as radioed to defendant (* "inutes before landin4, it has not been disputed b' defendant airline that O6a"is $it' has no all+ eather airport and has to cancel its fli4ht to O6a"is $it' or b'+pass it in the event of incle"ent eather. Bno in4 this fact, it beco"es the dut' of defendant to provide all "eans of co"fort and convenience to its passen4ers hen the' ould have to be left in a stran4e place in case of such b'+passin4. The steps ta!en b' defendant airline co"pan' to ards this end has not been put in evidence, especiall' for those / others ho ere not acco""odated in

the return trip to $ebu, onl' - of the %( havin4 been so acco""odated. It appears that plaintiff had to leave on the ne<t fli4ht % da's later. If the cause of non+fulfill"ent of the contract is due to a fortuitous event, it has to be the sole and onl' cause 0#rt. (/** $$., #rt. (/.. $.$.3 Since part of the failure to co"pl' ith the obli4ation of co""on carrier to deliver its passen4ers safel' to their destination la' in the defendant@s failure to provide co"fort and convenience to its stranded passen4ers usin4 e<tra+ ordinar' dili4ence, the cause of non+fulfill"ent is not solel' and e<clusivel' due to fortuitous event, but due to so"ethin4 hich defendant airline could have prevented, defendant beco"es liable to plaintiff. 23 8hile e find P#5 re"iss in its dut' of e<tendin4 ut"ost care to private respondent hile bein4 stranded in $otabato $it', there is no sufficient basis to conclude that P#5 failed to infor" hi" about his non+acco""odation on Fli4ht *-;, or that it as inattentive to his >ueries relative thereto. On . #u4ust ()/*, the Station #4ent reported to his Iranch Mana4er in $otabato $it' that G .. Of the fifteen stranded passen4ers t o pa< elected to ta!e F7/& on #u4ust ;*, three pa< opted to ta!e F77% #u4ust ;.. The re"ainin4 ten 0(;3 includin4 sub9ect re>uested that the' be instead acco""odated 0 sic3 on F77- $IO+I,N the follo in4 da' here the' intended to ta!e the surface transportation to O2$. Mr. Pedro 2apatos had b' then been ver' vocal and boiceterous 0sic3 at the counter and e tactfull' "ana4ed to steer hi" inside the Station #4ent@s office. Mr. Pedro 2apatos then ada"antl' insisted that all the diverted passen4ers should have been 4iven priorit' over the ori4inatin4 passen4ers of F*-; hether confir"ed or other ise. 8e e<plained our policies and after a hile he see"ed pacified and thereafter too! his tic!et 0in+lieued 0sic3 to $IO+I,N, $O$ON basis3, at the counter in the presence of five other passen4ers ho ere aitin4 for their tic!ets too. The rest of the diverted pa< had left earlier after bein4 assured their tic!ets ill be read' the follo in4 da'. 2) #foresaid Report bein4 an entr' in the course of business is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Private respondent, apart fro" his testi"on', did not offer an' controvertin4 evidence. If indeed P#5 o"itted to 4ive infor"ation about the options available to its diverted passen4ers, it ould have been delu4ed ith co"plaints. Iut, onl' private respondent co"plained G #tt'. Rivera 0for P#53 F I understand fro" 'ou Mr. 2apatos that at the ti"e 'ou ere aitin4 at $otabato #irport for the decision of P#5, 'ou ere not infor"ed of the decision until after the airplane left is that correctE # Hes. $O:RTC F 8hat do 'ou "ean b' 1'es1E Hou "eant 'ou ere not infor"edE # Hes, I as not infor"ed of their decision, that the' ill onl' acco""odate fe passen4ers.

F #side fro" 'ou there ere "an' other stranded passen4ersE # I believed, 'es. F #nd 'ou ant us to believe that P#5 did not e<plain 0to3 an' of these passen4ers about the decision re4ardin4 those ho ill board the aircraft bac! to $ebuE # No, Sir. F Despite these facts Mr. 2apatos did an' of the other passen4ers co"plained 0sic3 re4ardin4 that incidentE <<< <<< <<< # There ere plent' of ar4u"ent and I as one of those tal!in4 about "' case. F Did 'ou hear an'bod' co"plained 0sic3 that he has not been infor"ed of the decision before the plane left for $ebuE # No. 25 #d"ittedl', private respondent@s insistence on bein4 4iven priorit' in acco""odation as unreasonable considerin4 the fortuitous event and that there as a se>uence to be observed in the boo!in4, i.e., in the order the passen4ers chec!ed+in at their port of ori4in. ?is intransi4ence in fact as the "ain cause for his havin4 to sta' at the airport lon4er than as necessar'. #tt'. RiveraC F #nd, 'ou ere sa'in4 that despite the fact that accordin4 to 'our testi"on' there ere at least (passen4ers ho ere stranded there in $otabato airport accordin4 to 'our testi"on', and later 'ou said that there ere no other people left there at that ti"e, is that correctE # Hes, I did not see an'one there around. I thin! I as the onl' civilian ho as left there. F 8h' is it that it too! 'ou lon4 ti"e to leave that placeE # Iecause I as ar4uin4 ith the P#5 personnel.
26

#nent the plaint that P#5 e"plo'ees ere disrespectful and inattentive to ard private respondent, the records are bereft of evidence to support the sa"e. Thus, the rulin4 of respondent $ourt of #ppeals in this re4ard is ithout basis. 2* On the contrar', private respondent as attended to not onl' b' the personnel of P#5 but also b' its Mana4er.1 28 In the li4ht of these findin4s, e find the a ard of "oral da"a4es of Fift' Thousand Pesos 0P*;,;;;.;;3 unreasonabl' e<cessive= hence, e reduce the sa"e to Ten Thousand Pesos 0P(;,;;;.;;3. $onfor"abl' here ith, the a ard of e<e"plar' da"a4es

is also reduced to five Thousand Pesos 0*,;;;.;;3. Moral da"a4es are not intended to enrich the private respondent. The' are a arded onl' to enable the in9ured part' to obtain "eans, diversion or a"use"ents that ill serve to alleviate the "oral sufferin4 he has under4one b' reason of the defendant@s culpable action. 29 8ith re4ard to the a ard of actual da"a4es in the a"ount of P*,;;;.;; representin4 private respondent@s alle4ed business losses occasioned b' his sta' at $otabato $it', e find the sa"e un arranted. Private respondent@s testi"on' that he had a scheduled business 1transaction of shar! liver oil supposedl' to have been consu""ated on #u4ust ., ()/* in the "ornin41 and that 1since 0private respondent3 as out for nearl' t o ee!s I "issed to bu' about (; barrels of shar! liver oil,1 3+ are purel' speculative. #ctual or co"pensator' da"a4es cannot be presu"ed but "ust be dul' proved ith reasonable de4ree of certaint'. # court cannot rel' on speculation, con9ecture or 4uess or! as to the fact and a"ount of da"a4es, but "ust depend upon co"petent proof that the' have suffered and on evidence of the actual a"ount thereof. 31 8?DRDFORD the decision appealed fro" is #FFIRMDD ith "odification ho ever that the a ard of "oral da"a4es of Fift' Thousand Pesos 0P*;,;;;.;;3 is reduced to Ten Thousand Pesos 0P(;,;;;.;;3 hile the e<e"plar' da"a4es of Ten Thousand Pesos 0P(;,;;;.;;3 is also reduced to Five Thousand Pesos 0P*,;;;.;;3. The a ard of actual da"a4es in the a"ount Five Thousand Pesos 0P*,;;;.;;3 representin4 business losses occasioned b' private respondent@s bein4 stranded in $otabato $it' is deleted. SO ORDDRDD. Cruz !ri"o#Aquino $avide %r. and &uiason %%. concur.

, "oot$ote( Penned b' Austice Floreliana $astro+Iartolo"e, concurred in b' Austices Aor4e R. $o>uia, Mariano #. 2osa and Iienvenido $. D9ercito, Third civil $ases Division. % Rollo, p. 7-. . Record of D<hibits, p. (.. 7 TSN, (* March ()/), p. %). * Id., p. ... - Id., p. ((. / Id., p. %/. & Id., pp. %7+%*. ) Rollo, pp. *7+*-. (; Penned b' Aud4e Melencio #. ,enato, $ourt of First Instance of Misa"is Occidental, Iranch II, O6a"i6 $it'= Rollo, pp. ./+77. (( Rollo, pp. ((%+((-.

(% Id., p. (*. (. Id., pp. (*/+(*&. (7 Rollo, pp. 7)+*;. (* TSN, (* March ()/), pp. (;+((. (- #revalo v. Di"a'u4a, 7) Phil. &)7, &)/ 0()%/3. (/ See Iean v. Hatco, &% Phil. .;, ./+.& 0()7&3. (& TSN, (* March ()/), p. .7. () Sec. *, Rule (;, Rules of $ourt. %; #rt. (/**, Ne $ivil $ode of the Philippines. %( 5+%(7.&, %& Septe"ber ()--, (& S$R# (**, (-/+(-&. %% #boiti6 Shippin4 $orporation v. $ourt of #ppeals, ,.R. No. &77*&, Nove"ber ()&), (/) S$R# )*, (;%. %. Rollo, p. ((7. %7 D<h. 1/1, Record of D<hibits, p. (.. %* TSN, (* March ()/), pp. %(+%%. %- I'id., p. %.. %/ Rollo, p. ((7. %& TSN, (* March ()/), pp. /+(;= See also Report dated . #u4ust ()/), supra. %) De 5eon v. $ourt of #ppeals, 5+.().(, .( #u4ust ()&&, (-* S$R# (--, (/). .; TSN, (* March ()/), pp. (-+(/. .( Dio!no v. $ourt of #ppeals, ,.R. No. **-(., (; Dece"ber ());, ()% S$R# (-), (/-.