Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs.

Jaime and Nilda RAMOS, Erlinda, Milagros and Daniel ILANO, and Felipa JAVALERA
Medialdea, J. March 23, 1992 G.R. No. 92740
Doctrine Burden of Proof. Rule 131, Sec. 1 provides that Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.

[doctrine 1] Degree of evidence required to support a claim in civil cases

[doctrine 2] Determination of a question of fact
[doctrine 3] Credibility of witnesses vis--vis documentary evidence

Summary Private respondents were supposed to fly from Naga to Manila with PAL. It was alleged that, in violation of the condition on
their ticket to check in at least 30 minutes before the published departure time, they were late so PAL gave their seats to
waitlisted passengers. As a result, respondents filed a complaint for breach of contract against PAL for kicking them off. SC
reversed both the lower courts and ruled in favor of PAL, as the evidence on record belied the claims of the private
respondents and supported the defense of PAL, with the latters testimonial evidence corroborated by its documentary
evidence having more weight over the formers bare testimonial evidence. [see doctrine]
Facts Plane tickets: Private respondents, officers of the Negros Telephone Company, purchased plane tickets with PAL to
take them from Naga City to Manila on September 24, 1985, scheduled to depart 4:25pm.
o Required check-in time: Among the conditions on the tickets was that if they failed to check-in at
least 30 minutes before the departure time, their accommodation would be forfeited.
Empty counter; cancelled tickets: They alleged that they were at the PAL counter at least an hour before departure
but no one was there to accommodate them until 30 minutes before departure. Upon checking in and presenting their
tickets to the PAL employee who showed up, their tickets were cancelled and given to chance passengers.
Bus ride; complaint: Because of the cancellation, they had to take a bus to Manila. They later filed a complaint for
damages arising from the breach of contract of carriage before RTC Imus.
o Private respondents that (1) they were on time; (2) it was actually PAL personnel who were late which
accounted for their late check-in; (3) PAL advanced the check-in time and the departure of their flight
resulting in their non-accommodation. (the flight left at 4:13pm, ahead of schedule)
Defense: Disclaimed liability, claiming that the non-accommodation was due to private respondents late check-in.
RTC for respondents; CA affirmed: RTC found defendant guilty of breaching the contract of carriage in bumping off
the private respondents, ordering them to pay damages.1 PAL appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC in toto.
Issues/Ratio
W/N the private respondents were late in checking-in for their flight from Naga City to Manila (YES)
[doctrine 1] Each party in a case is required to prove his affirmative allegations. In civil cases, the degree of
evidence required of a party in order to support his claim is preponderance of evidence or that evidence adduced
by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party.

[doctrine 2] As a general rule, determination of a question of fact depends largely on the credibility of
witnesses unless some documentary evidence is available which clearly substantiates the issue and whose
genuineness and probative value is not disputed.

SC: The exception applies in this case, which also illustrates the SCs power to re-weigh the findings of lower courts
when they are not supported by the record or not based on substantial evidence, as was the case here.

[as applied] Private respondents knew the check-in rule, prominently printed on the tickets. The station manager had
the discretion to allow late passengers to board on the condition that the flight was not fully booked and there were
seats available. They could not, however, be accommodated because the flight was fully booked owing to the
Peafrancia Festival and a number of morning flights were cancelled, resulting in a number of waitlisted passengers.

Edmundo Araquel, the check-in clerk at the time, testified that two other confirmed passengers were late and denied
accommodation before private respondents arrived at the counter. The latter did not present evidence to controvert
this testimony. It was also unlikely that no one was present at the counter was supposed to be opened at 3:25pm
when they knew they had to deal with passengers unable to board the cancelled morning flights.

[doctrine 3] A writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction in which are evidenced facts
pertinent to an issue, when admitted as proof of those facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of
greater probative force than the oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon memory and recollection.

[as applied] Petitioner was able to rebut the allegation that there was no PAL personnel at the check-in counter by
producing the Daily Station Report showing the personnel deployment of PAL at the Naga airport. It showed that the
counter was manned from 3:25pm up to when late passengers were showing up.

In absence of any controverting evidence, documentary evidence presented to corroborate the testimonies of PAL's
witnesses were prima facie evidence of the truth of their allegations. The tickets (with the notation late 4:02) and the
passenger manifest (which showed that the late passengers before the private respondents were also not
accommodated) were entries made in the regular course of business which the private respondents failed to
overcome with substantial and convincing evidence other than their testimonies.

Differences in the private respondents allegations also belied their claims in light of the petitioners evidence. In their
complaint, they claimed that no one was at the counter until 30 minutes before the published departure time and

1
1) P1,250.20 the total value of the tickets: 2) P22.50 the total value of airport security fees and terminal fees; 3) P20,000.00 for each of the plaintiffs for
moral and temperate damages; and 4) P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
 that the employee who finally attended to them marked them late. However, in their testimonies, they contended that
there were two different PAL personnel who attended to them at the check-in counter.

There was also nothing suspicious in the fact that the flight departed earlier. It was clear that all the passengers have
already boarded. There was no sense in keeping them waiting for the scheduled departure time.

Holding Petition GRANTED. CA decision ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

by rjnuez [ evidence | morales ]