Moral Damages 4. At the airport, a Lufthansa agent called to Ortigas, asking for his papers.
He
G.R. No. L-28773 – June 30, 1975
Ortigas vs Lufthansa
BARREDO, J.
Ortigas, who had a valid first class ticket for a flight from Rome to Hong Kong, was refused
admittance by Lufthansa because his seat had instead been given to a Belgian passenger.
The Court awarded moral damages to Ortigas on account of the airline’s bad faith, and
exemplary damages. The Court hinted that there was discrimination in the airline’s
decision to eject Ortigas in favor of the Belgian. Furthermore, deception was employed by
the airline when it promised Ortigas that he would be accommodated as a first class
passenger in the remaining legs of the trip, which, as it turned out, was not the case. Other
circumstances were also considered, such as Ortigas’ heart condition and his esteemed
standing in society. The Court likewise awarded exemplary damages, noting that this was
not the first case where Filipinos with valid tickets were ejected without good reason.
DOCTRINE
When it comes to contracts of carriage, inattention and lack of care on the part of the
carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be accommodated in the class contracted
amounts to bad faith or fraud which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages
in accordance with Article 2220
FACTS
1. Ortigas went on a trip around the world (Manila>Hongkong>US>Europe>Asia>Far
East>then back to Manila), with first class seats for all the different legs of his trip.
a. His ticket was purchased from Pan Am but the different legs are flown on
different airlines, one of which was with Lufthasa German Airlines.
2. While in Rome, he was informed that he had to be in Hongkong by November 19,
1963 for his appointments there on November 20. Thus, he went to an Alitalia
ticketing office on November 16 to purchase (or rebook) a first class ticket from Rome
to Hongkong for November 18.
a. He was told by the agent that Alitalia had no available first class seats on
the said date. Upon Ortigas’ request, the agent tried to contact other airlines.
b. The agent found an available seat on Lufthansa and reserved the same.
Ortigas then requested the agent to call Lufthansa to confirm, after which
the reservation was duly confirmed and validated, as evidenced by the
validation sticker and the “OK” notation by the agent on Ortigas’ ticket. This
was more than 48 hours prior to departure.
3. When Ortigas arrived at Rome’s Termini Station, the Lufthansa check-in agent
informed him that he had no reservations.
a. Upon rechecking, the agent apologized, confirmed Ortigas’ reservation and
took his luggage with the corresponding waiver of luggage fees afforded to
first class passengers.
b. Ortigas then boarded the bus that woud take him to the airport some 37
kilometers away. (Note: In this case, the passengers check-in at a bus
terminal near or at Rome’s Termini Station where, after check-in, they board
the bus that will take them to Fiumicino Airport.)
presented his travel documents and passport, in which his Filipino nationality was
indicated.
5. The agent thereafter informed him that he would have to give up his seat in first
class to a Belgian passenger.
a. Ortigas protested and demanded the agent to produce the Belgian’s ticket to
see who had a better right over the first class seat. The agent refused to do
this.
6. Ortigas, who had been suffering from a heart ailment, took a nitroglycerin pill, and
requested the agent to look for other airlines where first class seats to Hongkong may
still be available.
a. Again, the agent refused. But he promised to make arrangements for
Ortigas to be accommodated in first class from Cairo. (Note that at the time,
given the limited range of aircrafts, a single flight may consist of several
legs. In this case, the flight to Hongkong from Rome had stops in Cairo,
Dhahram, Calcutta and Bangkok.)
b. The agent then made scribbles on this ticket, which Ortigas took as a
notation declaring that he be admitted as a first class passenger from Cairo
onward. On account of his condition and the fact that his hotel would
not be able to accommodate him once he’s checked out, he did not
protest.
7. In Cairo, Dhahram and Calcutta, he was not admitted to the first class section. It was
only when the plane left Bangkok for Hongkong that a flight attendant approached him
and offered him a seat in first class.
a. Ortigas refused as a protest. Besides, the flight was only for 3 hours.
8. Ortigas filed a civil action for damages against Lufthansa.
a. After pre-trial, the case was postponed several times because the parties
tried to reach a settlement, and because Ortigas had to attend to his
businesses here and abroad. No settlement was reached.
9. The trial court found in favor of Ortigas, ordering Lufthansa to pay the former
P100,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary, and P20,000 as atty’s fees
and costs.
10. Hence this appeal to the SC.
a. Arguments of Lufthansa:
i. Ortigas could not have been discriminated on account of
appearance because he could easily be taken for a European or
white, and the other first class passengers were actually Orientals.
ii. Ortigas did not take offense at being downgraded as he was in
jovial mood throughout the trip.
iii. The Alitalia employee who validated and confirmed his reservation
must have made a mistake because he was informed by the
Lufthansa Rome office that he could only be waitlisted;
iv. There is no way by which its Rome Office could have assured
Ortigas about what he would be given in Cairo, as the flight as
already fully booked.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WoN there was a contract of carriage between the plaintiff and Lufthansa. YES.
a. As members of the International Air Transport Association, Alitalia, which
issued the ticket (in fact no. 2.a.), and Lufthansa are pool partners. Hence,
Alitalia may issue a ticket on behalf of Lufthansa.
1
 b. This ticket was confirmed and validated by the agent of Alitalia. His “OK”
notation on the ticket means that the reservation is confirmed, in accordance
with the guidelines of the IATA.
c. Furthermore, Lufthansa’s agent at the bus terminal confirmed Ortigas’
reservation, and duly collected his baggage and applied the waiver of the
baggage fees only given to first class passengers.
2. (IMPORTANT): WoN Lufthansa is liable for moral damages. YES.
a. Yes, since evidently there was bad faith on the part of Lufthansa. The
following circumstances point to defendant acting in bad faith and in willful
disregard of the plaintiff’s rights:
i. Despite having a valid first class ticket, the plaintiff was
relegated to economy class without a valid explanation. It
would even seem that there discrimination on the part of the
Lufthansa since it had decided to eject the plaintiff from first class
upon examination of his travel documents, where his Filipino
nationality was indicated in favor of a Belgian passenger, whose
ticket the airline refused or failed to present. Lufthansa’s defense
that Mr. Ortigas is of European descent and therefore could not
have been discriminated on account of race, and the fact that the
other first class passengers were Orientals, will not stand given
that no valid reason for the ejectment was proffered.
ii. The agent deceived Mr. Ortigas into boarding the Lufthansa flight
with the promise that he will be upgraded to first class at Cairo.
The Cairo ground staff of the airline said they were not informed of
the upgrade. The scribbles written by the agent in Rome airport
read: “TRVLDY/c Rome HEG ROME ST” (Travelled economy
class from Rome to Hongkong ST), which turned out to mean that
the plaintiff would be travelling in economy for the rest of the flight,
thus barring him from arguing that the agent in Rome had verbally
promised him of an upgrade. From the circumstances, given that
the agent also refused to check if the other airlines had first class
seats available, the defendant not only breached its duty but also
did not want to release the plaintiff and wished to hold on to him
(so as not to reimburse him) even if it would cause him
inconvenience and embarrassment.
b. The plaintiff is also entitled to an increase in the moral damages he may
claim on account of the following circumstances:
i. Lufthansa knew of Ortigas’ heart condition, and that his physician
had advised him to fly first class. According to the records of the
case, the plaintiff made this emphatically clear to Lufthansa while
still in Rome.
ii. Ortigas was man of standing, with a distinguished record as a
lawyer, businessman and civic and religious leader with numerous
awards and citations. He was chairman of the boards of directors
of the companies he represented. Additionally, he was travelling
with a special passport issued to him by the Philippine
government.
iii. The situation in Rome where plaintiff was refused admittance to
first class despite having a valid ticket was repeated in Cairo,
Dhahram and Calcutta.
c. When it comes to contracts of carriage, it is the view of the Court that
inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of
the passenger to be accommodated in the class contracted amounts to bad
faith or fraud which entitles the passenger to the award of moral damages in
accordance with Article 2220.
d. The Court has uniformly upheld the right of a passenger to damages in all
cases wherein, after having contracted and paid for first class
accommodations duly confirmed and validated, he is transferred over his
objection to economy class, which has to take in order to be able to arrive at
his destination on his scheduled time. (The Court then cites the cases of
Lopez v. Pan Am, Air France v. Carrascoso and Northwest Airlines v.
Cuenca, where the plaintiff, then Commissioner of Public Highways, was
rudely rejected from his first class seat on a trip from Manila to Tokyo.)
3. WoN Lufthansa is liable for exemplary damages?
a. Yes. “Exemplary damages are required by public policy, for wanton acts
must be repressed…The rationale behind [such] damages is to provide an
example or correction for public good…in such amount as to sufficiently and
effectively deter similar breach of contracts by the defendant.”
b. The Court noted that it is not the first time that Filipinos with valid first class
tickets are ejected and shoved to economy class without any regard to their
feelings.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE the judgment appealed from is MODIFIED by raising the award of moral
and exemplary damages to plaintiff Ortigas to P150,000 and P100,000, respectively. In all
other respects, including the payment of interests on the said amounts, the same is
affirmed.
OTHER NOTES
Lufthansa also averred that it was deprived of due process when the lower court moved for
the resolution of the case after it failed to present its witnesses for cross-examination. The
Court said that many accommodations (for postponement) were given to the defense,
including those which reasons therefor should not have been considered. Also, the lower
court was right to strike Lazzari’s testimony since the witness had not been cross-
examined. The failure of the witness to appear was not sufficiently justified by the defense.
The trial had also dragged on for at least three years, mostly because of the defense’s
numerous motions for postponement.
DIGESTER: Cimafranca (for Torts; edited by: Xave Libardo for Transpo)