SUPREME COURT OF THE PHtlll'PINES

PUllWFORMATtON OFFICE

rn1r . . .~~.~u
l\epublic of tbe .flbilippine~
~upreme <teourt
manila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated March 13, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 199767 (Air France v. Charles Auguste Raymond

M. Zani). - This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the
Decision2 dated November 24, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 94429. The CA affirmed the Decision3 dated
February 16, 2009 of Branch 58 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City, awarding moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's
fees in favor of respondent Charles Auguste Raymond M. Zani due to
petitioner Air France's breach of the contract of carriage between
them.

On September 13, 1995, petitioner and respondent executed a

credit agreement4 allowing respondent to purchase airline tickets on
credit and at a fixed price from petitioner. Their agreement contained
the following payment terms:

A. Tickets purchased from the 1st to the ·15th of

the month is [sic] due and payable to Air France
Manila at the end of the month.

B. Tickets purchased from the 16th of the month

to end of the month is [sic] due and payable to Air
France Manila on the 15th of the following month. 5

Respondent purchased several airline tickets from petitioner

under this agreement. Despite the payment terms, however, by May

1 Rollo, pp. 21-54.

2
Id at 60-75; penned by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of the Court) and
concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito N. Diamante.
3
Id at 150-155; rendered by Presiding Judge Eugene C. Paras.
4
Id at 169-169-A.
5 Id at 169.

- over - fifteen (15) pages ...

~
154
/
 RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

• 17, 2000, respondent had an outstanding balance of Pl,738,180.00,

prompting petitioner to send a demand letter6 to respondent. Attached
to petitioner's demand letter is respondent's statement of account7
indicating the latter's purchases and payments to petitioner. On July
14, 2000, petitioner, through its counsel, wrote respondent informing
him that he will be refused carriage on any of petitioner's network or
flights until respondent settles his outstanding balance. 8

Due to respondent's failure to pay, petitioner filed in the RTC a

collection case against respondent entitled Air France/GSR Air
Afrique v. Charles Zani Consultants docketed as Civil Case No. 00-
1424. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, which the CA affirmed in
its Decision dated September 29, 2008. We affirmed the RTC and the
CA through our Minute Resolution dated March 18, 2009. 9

Meanwhile, on July 11, 2000, respondent purchased and

booked flights through ANSCOR Travel Corporation, a travel agency.
Respondent's trip was from July 12-24, 2000; covered different
destinations; and involved several airlines, including petitioner. The
travel agency issued confirmed Conjunction Tickets No.
6183315948394/95 with the following itinerary: 10

Point of Departure
Date of Departure Airline
Destination
Singapore Airlines
July 12, 2000 Manila to Singapore
(SAL)
July 12, 2000 Singapore to Dubai SAL
July 13, 2000 Dubai to Mahe Island Air Seychelles
July 18, 2000 Mahe Island to Paris Air France
July 19, 2000 Paris to Nice Air France
July 23, 2000 Nice to Paris Air France
July 23, 2000 Paris to Singapore SAL
July 24, 2000 Singapore to Manila SAL

The first three legs of the conjunction flight proceeded as

scheduled. For his July 18, 2000 flight from Mahe Island to Paris,
respondent decided to rebook his confirmed flight to an earlier date.
He communicated with petitioner's Paris office and got confirmation
via telephone for a July 16, 2000 flight, two days earlier than

6
Id. at 170.
7
Id. at 171.
8
Id. at 126.
9
Rollo, pp. 27, 35-36; Charles Zani Consultants v. Air France/GSR Air Afrique, G.R. No.
185856.
10
Id. at 61, 99.

- over -
154 I

~
 RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

originally scheduled. II Per instructions from petitioner, respondent

proceeded to the former' s office in Mahe Island on the morning of
July 15, 2000, and personally received another confirmation, IZ for
which a confirmation sticker was placed on his ticket. 13

On the evening of July 15, 2000, however, petitioner's manager

in Mahe Island informed respondent via telephone call that he will not
be allowed embarkation on the confirmed flight the following day. I4

On July 16, 2000, respondent was refused boarding. Petitioner's

manager in Mahe Island executed a written documentI 5 which detailed
the supposed reason for the refusal of embarkation. The letter reads, in
part:

This refusal is linked to Article 7, of the general

terms and condition of transportation - passengers
and luggage - stating:

<<The airline carrier may, at any

boarding gate, and/or at any connection gate,
refuse the boarding of a passenger or the
loading of a luggage, if he has previously
informed the passenger in writing that he
does not want to carry him/her anymore or if
any of the following cases has happened:

the applicable air-fare or all due

expenses or taxes have not been paid or,

credit arrangements have not been

made between the air-carrier and the
passenger (or the person who buys the
ticket)>>. 16

Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint for damages I7 against

petitioner and SAL docketed as Civil Case No. 01-832. He claims that
petitioner's refusal was a breach of the contract of carriage between
him, petitioner, and SAL, which caused him actual and moral
damages.

11
Id. at 61-62.
12
Id at 61-62, 150.
13
Id at 62.
14 Id
15
Rollo, pp. 178-180.
16
Id. at 179.
17
Id at 92-98.

- over-
154

·~
/
 RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that at the time of the

incident, respondent was indebted to it in the aggregate amount of
Pl, 738, 180.00, which is a clear violation of their credit arrangement.
Thus, when petitioner refused carriage to respondent, it was merely
enforcing its rights under Article VII( 1)(g) of the General Conditions
of Carriage, Passenger, and Baggage. 18

In a Decision dated February 16, 2009, the RTC ruled in

respondent's favor. It held that petitioner and respondent had a
perfected contract when the former confirmed the latter's tickets
twice, and that petitioner's refusal to let respondent board was a
breach of their contract, notwithstanding respondent's pending
obligation to it. The RTC dismissed respondent's claim against SAL
on the ground that there was no showing that SAL is petitioner's
principal. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered,

judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant
AIR FRANCE as follows:

1. To pay plaintiff the sum of PS00,000.00 as

moral damages;
2. To pay plaintiff the sum of P500,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
3. To pay plaintiff the amount equivalent to
25% of the sum awarded attorney's fees [sic];
and
4. Costs of suit.

Upon the facts and jurisprudence applicable, the

complaint against Singapore Airlines is hereby
DISMISSED and so is also its counterclaim for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 19

The RTC also denied the parties' respective motions for

reconsideration via its Order2° dated June 11, 2009.

The CA, in the assailed Decision dated November 24, 2011,

affirmed the RTC Decision in to to. 21

Hence, this petition.

18
Id at 118-125.
19
Id at 155.
20
Id at 168.
21
Id at 75.

- over-
154
,I
 RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Petitioner argues that the CA' s award of moral and exemplary

damages, as well as attorney's fees, in favor of respondent is contrary
to law and applicable jurisprudence. Its refusal to transport respondent
is pursuant to a right arising from the binding terms of the contract of
carriage as the tickets issued to respondent are subject to certain
conditions. 22 These conditions are embodied in petitioner's General
Conditions of Carriage, Passenger, and Baggage,23 Article VII of
which reads:

1. Right to refuse carriage

The Carrier may, at any point of embarkation

and/or point of connection, refuse the carriage of
any Passenger or Passenger's Baggage if the Carrier
has notified the Passenger in writing that it would
[not], at any time after the date of such Notice carry
him/her on its Flights or, if one or more of the
following have occurred or may occur:

xx xx

(g) the applicable fare or any charge or tax

payable have not been paid or relevant credit
arrangements agreed between the Carrier and the
Passenger (or the person paying for the Ticket) have
not been complied with; x x x24

More, respondent's tickets are subject to the conditions set by

the International Air Transport Association (IATA), one of which
states:

CARRIER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

REFUSE CARRIAGE TO ANY PERSON WHO
HAS ACQUIRED A TICKET IN VIOLATION OF
APPLICABLE LAW OR CARRIER'S TARIFFS,
RULES ORREGULATIONS. 25

Petitioner argues that given respondent's unpaid ticket

purchases amounting to Pl,738,180.00, there was a violation of the
terms of the credit agreement and petitioner's rules and regulations,
which justifies the latter's exercise of its right to refuse carriage· to
respondent.
22
Id at 29-44.
23
Id. at 175-177.
24 Id at 176.
25
Id. at 182.

- over-

~
154
,I
 RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Further, assuming that the award is proper, petitioner contends

that the amounts are unconscionable, exorbitant, and plainly
inconsistent with jurisprudence. 26

On the other hand, respondent anchors his claim for damages

against petitioner on the latter's alleged breach of their contract of
carriage when petitioner refused to allow him to board the aircraft on
July 16, 2000. 27

We affirm the RTC and CA's finding that there was breach of
contract of carriage but modify the award of damages.

A contract of carriage is defined as one whereby a certain

person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport
persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price. 28
Thus, an airline's issuance of confirmed tickets is a guarantee to the
passenger that the airline would honor the tickets, assure him of a
space in the flight, and transport him for that segment of his trip
corresponding to the confirmed ticket. 29

Meanwhile, breach of contract is defined as the failure, without

legal reason, to comply with the terms of a contract, or the failure,
without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole
°
or part of the contract. 3 For contracts of air carriage, Philippine
Airlines, Incorporated v. Court ofAppeals31 is instructive:

When an airline issues a ticket to a

passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a
certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The
passenger has every right to expect that he be
transported on that flight and on that date, and it
becomes the airline's obligation to carry him and
his luggage safely to the agreed destination without
delay. If the passenger is not so transported or if
in the process of transporting, he dies or is
injured, the carrier may be held liable for a

26
Id. at 29, 44-50.
27
Id. at 367-389.
28
Cathay Pacific Airways v. Reyes, G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013, 699 SCRA 725, 737, citing
Crisostomo v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 138334, August 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 528, 533.
29
See Lufthanza German Airlines v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 83612, November 24, 1994,
238 SCRA 290, 300.
3
° Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd v. Vazquez, G.R. No. 150843, March 14, 2003, 399 SCRA 207,
~19, citing Black's Law Dictionary 171 (5 1h ed.).
/(~/ G.R. No. 123238, September 22, 2008, 566 SCRA 124.

~
- over -
154
/
 RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

breach of contract of carriage. 32 (Emphasis

supplied.)

In Singapore Airlines Limited v. Fernandez, 33 We further

explained:

The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one.

Imbued with public interest, the law requires
common carriers to carry the passengers safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using
the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with
due regard for all the circumstances.-ln an action for
breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party
does not have to prove that the common carrier was
at fault or was negligent. All that is necessary to
prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of
its non-performance by the carrier. 34 (Citations
omitted.)

Undoubtedly, a contract of carriage existed between petitioner

and respondent. Respondent carried confirmed tickets covering
several flights with petitioner: 1) Mahe Island to Paris (scheduled on
July 18, 2000 and rebooked to July 16, 2000); 2) Paris to Nice
(scheduled on July 19, 2000); and 3) Nice to Paris (scheduled on July
23, 2000). Further to their contract, respondent had the right to expect
that he would fly from Mahe Island to Paris on July 16, 2000. Since
petitioner refused to transport him, petitioner evidently breached their
contract of carriage and respondent had every right to sue petitioner
for this breach.

Petitioner argues that respondent's previous unpaid purchases

violated the General Conditions of Carriage, Passenger, and Baggage
to which his ticket for the July 16, 2000 flight is subjected, and
consequently justified petitioner's exercise of its right to refuse
carriage.

We agree with petitioner that the General Conditions of

Carriage, Passenger, and Baggage, as well as the IATA conditions of
carriage, are part of the contract of carriage between petitioner and
respondent as they set forth the terms and conditions of the contract
between petitioner and its passengers, including respondent. Thus,
when respondent purchased his tickets, he was instantaneously bound
32
Id. at 132-133, citing Japan Airlines v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 161730, January 28, 2005, 449
SCRA 544, 548.
33
G.R. No. 142305, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 474.
34
Id at 480.

- over-
154
/
~
 RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

by the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage35 which include

petitioner's right to refuse to carry respondent when the applicable
fare or charge has not been paid or a credit arrangement between
petitioner and respondent has not been complied with. It is unclear,
however, whether this condition applies to previous ticket purchases
respondent made or is limited to the July 16, 2000 flight.

We hold that petitioner can only refuse carriage due to non-

payment of the fare or credit arrangement when what remains unpaid,
or the credit arrangement which remains unsettled, is the fare for that
particular ticket or flight, in this case, the July 16, 2000 flight from
Mahe Island to Paris. This, in fact, is consistent with petitioner's
understanding and practice, as confirmed by petitioner's own witness,
Patricia Michelle Alfonso Casas, Flying Blue Mileage Coordinator for
Ticketing and Reservations Department at KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines. Relevant portions of her testimony provide:

Atty. Vera:

Q: In issuing tickets, would you be familiar with the

conditions governing the tickets issued by Air
France?

Witness:

A: Generally, yes, sir.

Atty. Vera:

Q: And would you tell us where [you can] find those

conditions?

Witness:

A: Basically in each ticket would refer the passenger to

the general conditions of carriage of the air line but
of course, there is specific book [sic] containing the
general conditions of carriage of Air France.

xx xx

Court:

xx xx

Q: What is the specific book you are mentioning?

35
See Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 92740, March 23, 1992, 207 SCRA 461, 471.

~
- over -
154)
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Witness:

A: It's the General Conditions of Carriage of Passenger

and Baggage of Air France, Your Honor.

xx xx

Atty. Vera:

Previously, you testified that you are familiar with

the General Conditions of Carriage for Passenger
and Baggage. Now I will ask you, you mentioned
that it's a thick book.

Q: The passenger[s], how were they informed of the

general terms and conditions of passenger and
baggage?

Witness:

A: Behind each ticket that the [passengers] buy, we

will basically advice [sic] them that there are
general conditions of carriage for each air line.

xx xx

Atty. Vera:

When the passenger receives a ticket, you

previously mentioned that the ticket would only
refer the passenger to the general terms and
conditions.

Q: Does this mean that the general terms and

conditions embodied in the booklet that you're
holding are not contained in the ticket?

Atty. Sugayan:

Objection, Your Honor. The question is leading.

Court:

Witness may answer.

Q: Are they contained in the ticket?

Witness:

A: Your Honor, the entire booklet cannot be contained

in the ticket.

~
- over -
154
/
 RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

xx xx

Atty. Vera:

Q: And so if the passenger [will inquire] about the

terms and conditions of carriage, how would the
passenger do it?

Atty. Sugayan:

Objection, Your Honor. The question is speculative.

Court:

If she knows, witness may answer.

Q: How would the passenger know?

Witness:

A: If the passenger has to inquire upon purchase of the

ticket, we would readily be able to show the
passenger at the ticket counter this book. We would
be able to present them the specific paragraph. 36

On her cross-examination, the witness further testified:

Court:

Please read back.

Stenographer:

Q: With regard to the plane ticket issued by Air France

and likewise confirmed by Air France and the ticket
having been fully paid from that passenger, is not a
policy of Air France that it has to honor the plane
ticket issued by Air France to the passenger?

A:
If Air France issues the ticket, Air France would
honor the ticket except that upon check-in, this
should be verified if the passenger has the right
documents.

36
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated March 20, 2006, pp. I 0-21.

- over -

~
154
"'
 RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Q:

And assuming that the passenger has the right

documents, you would honor the ticket?

xx xx

A:
x x x [I]f the ticket is issued by Air France[,] we
would honor the ticket but it also depends if the
passenger paid, in the form of payment of ticket
because if it is a ticket issued against credit line or a
credit account, sometimes there are credit line [sic]
that gave a fifteen (15) day period to pay for the
entire ticket, sometimes thirty (30) day period,
sometimes they issued the ticket, say, May 1 or
May 2 but then by the time he flies in July, the
client has not paid, for then he has a debt in Air
France. In that case, the airline, Air France[,] would
have an option not to board if the credit line, the
balance was not paid for. 37

As explained by its witness, petitioner would dishonor a ticket

and disallow a passenger from boarding a flight if the ticket for the
particular flight is not yet paid. In this case, respondent's unpaid
obligation to petitioner did not include the payment for the July 16,
2000 flight. It refers to previous purchases respondent made pursuant
to his credit arrangement with petitioner.

We are aware that Item (1), Article VII (Refusal and Limitation
on Carriage) of the General Conditions of Carriage, Passenger, and
Baggage stipulates that petitioner may also refuse to carry a passenger
when "the Passenger has previously committed one of the acts or
omissions referred to above." 38 The notice petitioner gave to
respondent, however, did not cite this provision as petitioner's basis
for its refusal to carry respondent. As petitioner did not indicate that
its refusal to carry respondent is in relation to his previous acts of not
paying for his ticket or not settling his credit arrangement, petitioner
cannot now claim that respondent's unsettled credit arrangement for
his previous purchase of tickets is the basis of petitioner's refusal to
carry him on board.

37
TSN dated May 2, 2006, pp. 18-21.
38
Rollo, p. 177.

~
- over-
154
/
 RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Indeed, the ambiguities in the contract, being one of adhesion,

should be construed against the party that caused its preparation39-in
this case, petitioner.

As petitioner's exercise of its right to refuse to carry respondent

was unjustified, We find that petitioner breached its contract of
carriage with respondent.

II

We, however, disagree with the CA's award of moral and

exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, in favor of respondent.

Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be

awarded in breaches of contract when the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith. In Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v.
Vazquez, 40 we explained this rule as applied to breaches of contract of
carriage:

Moral damages predicated upon a breach of

contract of carriage may only be recoverable in
instances where the carrier is guilty of fraud or
bad faith or where the mishap resulted in the
death of a passenger. Where in breaching the
contract of carriage the airline is 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. In such a case the liability does not
include moral and exemplary damages. 41 (Citations
omitted and emphasis supplied.)

Also, We have held that in situations where the negligence of

the carrier is so gross and reckless as to virtually amount to bad faith,
moral damages may also be awarded to the passenger. 42
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise
slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
avoid them. 43
39
Savel/ano v. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No. 151783, July 8, 2003, 405 SCRA 416, 424.
40
Supra note 30.
41
Id. at 222-223.
42
Singson v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 119995, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 149, 160.
Citation omitted.
43
BPI Investment Corporation v. D.G. Carreon Commercial Corp., G.R. No. 126524, November
29, 2001, 371 SCRA 58, 69-70.

~
- over -
154
 RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

In sustaining the award of moral damages, the CA held that

petitioner was guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith when
it arbitrarily cancelled respondent's confirmed flights hours before the
schedule. We do not agree with the CA's findings.

In Armovit v. Court of Appeals,44 We held that

the gross negligence committed by the airline in the issuance of the
tickets with erroneous entries as to the time of the flight, the failure to
correct such erroneous entries, and the manner by which petitioners
were rudely informed that they were bumped off amounted to bad
faith. 45 In ${ngson v. Court of Appeals,46 We held that the airline's
staffs ads of improperly detaching the passenger's flight coupons,
compounded by several other independent acts of negligence,
constituted gross negligence no different from fraud and bad faith. In
Philippine Airlines, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,41 We held that
the airline's failure to exercise utmost care in handling the indemnity
bond, which resulted in its loss and which was the proximate cause
why the unaccompanied minors were unable to take their connecting
flight, was negligence so gross and reckless that it amounted to bad
faith.

The circumstances in the said cases are different from those

obtaining here. Here, there is no showing that petitioner committed an
act indicating its utter lack of care and diligence in its dealing with
respondent. While petitioner may have been negligent in interpreting
and applying .the conditions of the contract of carriage and in not
informing respondent earlier that he will not be allowed to board the
flight, We cannot conclude that petitioner's negligence is so gross and
reckless that it already amounts to bad faith.

As for exemplary damages, Article 2232 of the Civil Code

provides that in a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship,
exemplary damages may be awarded only if the defendant had acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
Article 2234 of the Civil Code further requires that to be entitled to
exemplary damages, the claimant must show that he is entitled to
moral, temperate, or compensatory damages. Since respondent is not
entitled to any of these damages, the award of exemplary damages
must be deleted.
44
G.R. No. 88561, April 20, 1990, 184 SCRA 476.
45
Id. at 481-482.
46
Supra note 42,
47
Supra note 31.

- over -
154
/
 RESOLUTION 14 G.R. No. 199767
March 13, 2019

Respondent is likewise not entitled to attorney's fees and

litigation costs. We explained when attorney's fees are awarded:

While Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorney's fees

to be awarded if the claimant is compelled to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by
reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from
whom it is sought, there must be a showing that the losing
party acted willfully or in bad faith and practically
compelled the claimant to litigate and incur litigation
expenses. In view of the declared policy of the law that
awards of attorney's fees are the exception rather than the
rule, it is necessary for the trial court to make express
findings of facts and law that would bring the case within
the exception and justify the grant of such award. x x x

xx xx

Thus, the matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched

upon only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The
text itself must state the reasons why attorney's fees are
being awarded. x x x48

While the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision provided for

the award of attorney's fees and costs of suit, neither the RTC
Decision nor the CA Decision provided the factual or legal
justification for the awards. Thus, for lack of sufficient basis in fact,
law, or equity, together with the absence of bad faith, the award of
attorney's fees and costs must be deleted.

The most that can be adjudged in favor of respondent 1s

nominal damages under Article 2221 of the Civil Code:

Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in

order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him.

Nominal damages are recoverable if no actual, substantial, or

specific damages were shown to have resulted from the breach. The
amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the

48
Bufiingv. Santos, G.R. No. 152544, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 315, 321-323. Citations
omitted.

- over -

~
154
< .

RESOLUTION 15 G.R. No. 199767

March 13, 2019

court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. 49 Taking into

consideration the circumstances that respondent was forced to rebook
his flight, rearrange his schedule and business meetings, and suffer
confusion and frustration because of his missed flight, the award of
PS0,000.00 as nominal damages is proper.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' Decision dated

November 24, 2011 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The
award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and
costs, is hereby deleted for lack of basis. Petitioner is ORDERED to
pay nominal damages in the amount of PS0,000.00 to respondent.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

LIBRAD"AC.-BUENA &
Clerk of Court ~,\:i,
154

PLATON MARTINEZ FLORES SAN Court of Appeals (x)

PEDRO & LEANO Manila
Counsel fo Petitioner (CA-G.R. CV No. 94429)
6th Floor, Tuscan Bldg.
/
114 V.A. Rufino St., Legaspi Village CHAYES HECHANOVA &
1229 Makati City LIM LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Respondent
Public Information Office (x) Unit 7-D, Corinthian Plaza Condominium
Library Services (x) 121 Paseo de Roxas cor. Gamboa Sts.
Supreme Court Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City
(For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-
7-1-SC) The Presiding Judge
Regional Trial Court, Branch 58
Judgment Division (x) 1200 Makati City
Supreme Court (Civil Case No. 01-832)

UR
~

49
Savel/ano v. Northwest Airlines, supra note 39 at 430. Citations omitted.
~\9