Air
France vs. Gillego, 638 SCRA 472, G.R. No. 165266, December 15, 2010
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
On May 16, 1993, respondent Bonifacio H. Gillego left
Manila on board petitioner Air France’s aircraft bound for Paris, France. While
waiting at the De’ Gaulle International Airport for his connecting flight to
Budapest, respondent learned that petitioner had another aircraft bound for
Budapest with an earlier departure time than his scheduled flight. He then went
to petitioner’s counter at the airport and made arrangements for the change in
his booking. He was given a corresponding ticket and boarding pass and also a
new baggage claim stub for his checked-in luggage.
However, upon arriving in Budapest, the respondent was
unable to locate his luggage and the petitioner airliner never delivered the
lost luggage despite follow-up inquiries by the respondent. Upon his return to
the Philippines, respondent’s lawyer immediately wrote petitioner’s Station
Manager complaining about the lost luggage and the resulting damages he
suffered while in Budapest.
The respondent filed a complaint for damages against the
petitioner alleging that by reason of its negligence and breach of obligation
to transport and deliver his luggage. As special and affirmative defense,
petitioner contended that its liability for lost checked-in baggage is governed
by the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International
Carriage.
The trial court rendered its decision in favor of
respondent and against the petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the CA, which
affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the award of moral and exemplary damages
to the respondent is justifiable.
RULING
Yes, the award of moral and exemplary damages to the
respondent is justifiable.
Under the law, in awarding moral damages for breach of
contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately injurious or
the one responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. Not every
case of mental anguish, fright or serious anxiety calls for the award of moral
damages. Bad faith should be established by clear and convincing evidence. The
settled rule is that the law always presumes good faith such that any person
who seeks to be awarded damages due to the acts of another has the burden of
proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive.
In this case, while respondent failed to cite any act of
discourtesy, discrimination or rudeness by petitioner’s employees, SC held that
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 the respondent 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment