Case Digest: Cathay Pacific vs. Spouses Vasquez, G.R. No. 150843

 

Cathay Pacific v. Spouses Vasquez, G.R. 150843, March 14, 2003, 399 SCRA 207

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Spouses Vasquez, private respondents were passengers of Cathay Pacific, petitioner and the former was booked on its flight CX-905 with the route of Manila-HK-Manila with their maid and 2 friends, went to HK for pleasure and business. The maid's boarding pass was for the Economy Class, the spouses and friends indicated that they were on the Business Class. However, while in Kai Tak Airport, a flight attendant who was checking on the boarding pass of the passenger informed the spouses that they were upgraded from Business Class to First Class since they were noted as frequent flyers and Gold members of Marco Polo Club.

Respondents refused as they are together with their 2 friends, and unless the latter will be upgraded to First Class, then they will accept the upgrade since they will talk business while on flight and it would not look nice for them as hosts to travel while their guest is in lower class.

Unusual reaction to a seat upgrade, Ms. Chiu after consulting with her supervisor, informed that if they would not avail the upgrade, they would not be allowed to take the flight, Dr. Vasquez agreed to take together with her spouse the First Class and the guests in Business Class.

Back in Manila, respondents filed a damage suit and asked for damages to include the attorney’s fees on the ground that the discourteous and humiliating behavior of the attendant, Ms. Chiu and the breached on the contract of carriage.

RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Vasquez awarded them P100,000 each as nominal damage, 2M each as moral damages, 5M each as exemplary damages and 1M each as attorney’s fees. CA then affirmed but deleted the award of exemplary damages and reduced the awards of moral, nominal and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Vasquezes are entitled to damages.

RULING

Yes.

Under the law, the requisites for the award of moral damages are: (1) there must be an injury clearly sustained by the claimant, whether physical, mental or psychological; (2) there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award for damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Art 2219 of the Civil Code.

In this case, the petition was partly granted. Considering that the breach was intended to give more benefit and advantage to the Vasquezes by upgrading their accommodation because their being valued status as Marco Polo members however, a breach of contract committed by Cathay because without prior notice or consent over the respondents vigorous objection. The SC reduced the nominal damages from 100,000 to P5,000. Moral and exemplary damages excluded by the SC for the Cathay breaching the contract of carriage does 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 have reasonably foreseen.