VOL.

282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 149

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 119995. November 18, 1997.

CARLOS SINGSON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

and CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, INC., respondents.

Civil Law; Damages; Contracts; Contention of CATHAY that

there was no contract of carriage that was breached because
petitioner’s ticket was open-dated is untenable.—CATHAY
undoubtedly

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

committed a breach of contract when it refused to confirm

petitioner’s flight reservation back to the Philippines on account
of his missing flight coupon. Its contention that there was no
contract of carriage that was breached because petitioner’s ticket
was open-dated is untenable. To begin with, the round trip ticket
issued by the carrier to the passenger was in itself a complete
written contract by and between the carrier and the passenger. It
had all the elements of a complete written contract, to wit: (a) the
consent of the contracting parties manifested by the fact that the
passenger agreed to be transported by the carrier to and from Los
Angeles via San Francisco and Hongkong back to the Philippines,
and the carrier’s acceptance to bring him to his destination and
then back home; (b) cause or consideration, which was the fare
paid by the passenger as stated in his ticket; and, (c) object, which
was the transportation of the passenger from the place of
departure to the place of destination and back, which are also
stated in his ticket. In fact, the contract of carriage in the instant
case was already partially executed as the carrier complied with
its obligation to transport the passenger to his destination, i.e.,
Los Angeles. Only the performance of the other half of the
contract—which was to transport the passenger back to the
Philippines—was left to be done.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner was not a mere “chance
passenger with no superior right to be boarded on a specific
flight.”—Clearly therefore petitioner was not a mere “chance
passenger with no superior right to be boarded on a specific
flight,” as erroneously claimed by CATHAY and sustained by the
appellate court.
Same; Same; Same; To hold that no contractual breach was
committed by CATHAY and totally absolve it from any liability
would in effect put a premium on the negligence of its agents,
contrary to the policy of the law requiring common carriers to
exercise extraordinary diligence.—Interestingly, it appears that
CATHAY was responsible for the loss of the ticket. One of two (2)
things may be surmised from the circumstances of this case: first,
US Air (CA-THAY’s agent) had mistakenly detached the San
Francisco-Hongkong flight coupon thinking that it was the San
Francisco-Los Angeles portion; or, second, petitioner’s booklet of
tickets did not from issuance include a San Francisco-Hongkong
flight coupon. In either case, the loss of the coupon was
attributable to the negligence of CATHAY’s agents and was the
proximate cause of the non-confirmation of petitioner’s return
flight on 1 July 1988. It virtually

151

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 151

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

prevented petitioner from demanding the fulfillment of the

carrier’s obligations under the contract. Had CATHAY’s agents
been diligent in double checking the coupons they were supposed
to detach from the passengers’ tickets, there would have been no
reason for CA-THAY not to confirm petitioner’s booking as
exemplified in the case of his cousin and flight companion
Tiongson whose ticket booklet was found to be in order. Hence, to
hold that no contractual breach was committed by CATHAY and
totally absolve it from any liability would in effect put a premium
on the negligence of its agents, contrary to the policy of the law
requiring common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence.
Same; Same; Court is of the firm view that the appellate court
seriously erred in disallowing moral and exemplary damages.—
With regard to the second issue, we are of the firm view that the
appellate court seriously erred in disallowing moral and
exemplary damages. Although the rule is that moral damages
predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage may only be
recoverable in instances where the mishap results in the death of
a passenger, or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith,
there are situations where the negligence of the carrier is so gross
and reckless as to virtually amount to bad faith, in which case,
the passenger likewise becomes entitled to recover moral
damages.
Same; Same; Where in breaching the contract of carriage the
defendant airline is shown to have acted fraudulently, with malice
or in bad faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages, in
addition to actual damages, is proper.—Anent the accusation that
private respondent’s personnel were rude and arrogant, petitioner
failed to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim.
Nonetheless, such fact will not in any manner affect the
disposition of this case. Private respondent’s mistake in removing
the wrong coupon was compounded by several other independent
acts of negligence above-enumerated. Taken together, they
indubitably signify more than ordinary inadvertence or
inattention and thus constitute a radical departure from the
extraordinary standard of care required of common carriers. Put
differently, these circumstances reflect the carrier’s utter lack of
care and sensitivity to the needs of its passengers, clearly
constitutive of gross negligence, recklessness and wanton
disregard of the rights of the latter, acts evidently
indistinguishable or no different from fraud, malice and bad faith.
As the rule now stands, where in breaching the contract of
carriage the defendant

152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

airline is shown to have acted fraudulently, with malice or in bad

faith, the award of moral and exemplary damages, in addition to
actual damages, is proper.
Same; Same; The well-entrenched principle is that the grant of
moral damages depends upon the discretion of the court based on
the circumstances of each case.—However, the P500,000.00 moral
damages and P400,000.00 exemplary damages awarded by the
trial court have to be reduced. The well-entrenched principle is
that the grant of moral damages depends upon the discretion of
the court based on the circumstances of each case. This discretion
is limited by the principle that the “amount awarded should not
be palpably and scandalously excessive” as to indicate that it was
the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court.
Damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the
expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to alleviate the
moral suffering that the injured party had undergone by reason of
the defendant’s culpable action. There is no hard-and-fast rule in
the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral
damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar
facts.
Same; Same; Attorney’s fees; Attorney’s fees may be awarded
when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest.—As regards attorney’s fees, they may be awarded when
the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest. It was therefore erroneous for the Court of Appeals to
delete the award made by the trial court; consequently, petitioner
should be awarded attorney’s fees and the amount of P25,000.00,
instead of P100,000.00 earlier awarded, may be considered
rational, fair and reasonable.

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit for petitioner.
Platon, Martinez, Flores, San Pedro & Leaño for
private respondent.
153

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 153

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

BELLOSILLO, J.:

A contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Imbued with

public interest, common carriers are required by law to
carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious
1
person, with due regard for all the circumstances. A
contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind
and degree from any other contractual relation. And this
because its business is mainly with the traveling public. It
invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it
offers. The contract of carriage, therefore,
2
generates a
relation attended with a public duty. Failure of the carrier
to observe this high degree of care and extraordinary
diligence renders it liable for any damage that may be
sustained by its passengers.
The instant case is an illustration of the exacting
standard demanded by the law of common carriers: On 24
May 1988 CARLOS SINGSON and his cousin Crescentino
Tiongson bought from Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.
(CATHAY), at its Metro Manila ticket outlet two (2) open-
dated, identically routed, round trip plane tickets for the
purpose of spending their vacation in the United States.
Each ticket consisted of six (6) flight coupons corresponding
to this itinerary: flight coupon No. 1—Manila to Hongkong;
flight coupon No. 2—Hongkong to San Francisco; flight
coupon No. 3—San Francisco to Los Angeles; flight coupon
No. 4—Los Angeles back to San Francisco; flight coupon
No. 5—San Francisco to Hongkong; and, finally, flight
coupon No. 6—Hongkong to Manila. The procedure was
that at the start of each leg of the trip a flight coupon
corresponding to the particular sector of the travel would
be removed from the ticket booklet so that at the end of the
trip no more coupon would be left in the ticket booklet.

_________________

1 Art. 1755, New Civil Code.

2 Air France v. Carrascoso, No. L-21438, 28 September 1966, 18 SCRA
155, 167-168.

154

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

On 6 June 1988 CARLOS SINGSON and Crescentino

Tiongson left Manila on board CATHAY’s Flight No. 902.
They arrived safely in Los Angeles and after staying there
for about three (3) weeks they decided to return to the
Philippines. On 30 June 1988 they arranged for their
return flight at CATHAY’s Los Angeles Office and chose 1
July 1988, a Friday, for their departure. While Tiongson
easily got a booking for the flight, SINGSON was not as
lucky. It was discovered that his ticket booklet did not have
flight coupon No. 5 corresponding to the San Francisco-
Hongkong leg of the trip. Instead, what was in his ticket
was flight coupon No. 3—San Francisco to Los Angeles—
which was supposed to have been used and removed from
the ticket booklet. It was not until 6 July 1988 that
CATHAY was finally able to arrange for his return flight to
Manila.
On 26 August 1988 SINGSON commenced an action for
damages against CATHAY 3
before the Regional Trial Court
of Vigan, Ilocos Sur. He claimed that he insisted on
CATHAY’s confirmation of his return flight reservation
because of very important and urgent business
engagements in the Philippines. But CATHAY allegedly
shrugged off his protestations and arrogantly directed him
to go to San Francisco himself and do some investigations
on the matter or purchase a new ticket subject to refund if
it turned out that the missing coupon was still unused or
subsisting. He remonstrated that it was the airline’s
agent/representative who must have committed the
mistake of tearing off the wrong flight coupon; that he did
not have enough money to buy new tickets; and, CATHAY
could conclude the investigation in a matter of minutes
because of its facilities. CATHAY, allegedly in scornful
insolence, simply dismissed him like an impertinent
“brown pest.” Thus he and his cousin Tiongson, who
deferred his own flight to accompany him, were forced to
leave for San Francisco on the night of 1 July 1988 to verify
the missing ticket.

_________________

3 The case was raffled to the sala of Acting Presiding Judge Florencio A.
Ruiz, Jr., RTC-Br. 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

155

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 155

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

CATHAY denied these allegations and averred that since

petitioner was holding an “open-dated” ticket, which meant
that he was not booked on a specific flight on a particular
date, there was no contract of carriage yet existing such
that CATHAY’S refusal to immediately book him could not
be construed as breach of contract of carriage. Moreover,
the coupon had been missing for almost a month hence
CATHAY must first verify its status, i.e., whether the
ticket was still valid and outstanding, before it could issue
a replacement ticket to petitioner. For that purpose, it sent
a request by telex on the same day, 1 July 1988, to its
Hongkong4 Headquarters where such information could be
retrieved. However, due to the time difference between Los
Angeles and Hongkong, no response from the Hongkong
office was immediately received. Besides, since 2 and 3 July
1988 were a Saturday and a Sunday, respectively, and 4
July 1988 was an official holiday being U.S. Independence
Day, the telex response of CATHAY Hongkong was not
read until 5 July 1988. Lastly, CATHAY denied having
required SINGSON to make a trip back to San Francisco;
on the other hand, it was the latter who informed CATHAY
that he was making a side trip to San Francisco. Hence,
CATHAY advised him that the response of Hongkong
would be copied in San Francisco so that he could
conveniently verify thereat should he wish to.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner
herein holding that CATHAY was guilty of gross negligence
amounting to malice and bad faith for which it was
adjudged to pay petitioner P20,000.00 for actual damages
with interest at the legal rate of twelve percent (12%) per
annum from 26 August 1988 when the complaint was filed
until fully paid, P500,000.00 for moral damages,
P400,000.00 for exemplary damages, P100,000.00 for
attorney’s fees, and, to pay the costs.
On appeal by CATHAY, the Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court’s finding that there was gross negligence
amount-

________________

4 CATHAY centralizes all ticketing information at its Hong-kong

headquarters.

156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

ing to bad faith or fraud and, accordingly, modified its

judgment by deleting the awards for moral and exemplary
damages, and the attorney’s fees as well. Reproduced
hereunder are 5the pertinent portions of the decision of the
appellate court —

There is enough merit in this appeal to strike down the trial

court’s award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees x x x x In this material respect, the appellant correctly
underscores the fact that the appellee held an open dated ticket
for his return flight from San Francisco to Manila via Hongkong
and that, as a consequence, the latter was not actually confirmed
on the July 1, 1988 flight or, for that matter, any of the
appellant’s flights x x x x The appellant certainly committed no
breach of contract of carriage when it refused the appellee the
booking he requested on the said July 1, 1988 flight. As a “chance
passenger,” the latter had no automatic right to fly on that flight
and on that date.
Even assuming arguendo that a breach of contract of carriage
may be attributed the appellant, the appellee’s travails were
directly traceable to the mistake in detaching the San Francisco-
Hongkong flight coupon of his plane ticket which led to the
appellant’s refusal to honor his plane ticket. While that may
constitute negligence on the part of the air carrier, the same
cannot serve as basis for an award of moral damages. The rule is
that moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit predicated
upon a breach of contract of carriage only where (a) the mishap
results in the death of a passenger and (b) it is proved that the
carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if death does not
result x x x x In disallowing the trial court’s award of moral
damages, the Court takes appropriate note of the necessity for the
appellant’s verification of the status of the missing flight coupon
as well as the justifiable delay thereto attendant x x x x Contrary
to the appellee’s allegation that he was peremptorily refused
confirmation of his flight, and arrogantly told to verify the
missing flight coupon on his own, the record shows that the
appellant adopted such measures as were reasonably required
under the circumstances. Even the testimonies offered by the ap-

________________

5 Decision penned by Justice Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr., and concurred in by

Justices Cezar D. Francisco and Buenaventura J. Guerrero, CA-G.R. CV No.
38124.

157

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 157

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

pellee and his witnesses collectively show no trace of fraud or bad

faith as would justify the trial court’s award of moral damages.
The basis for the award of moral damages discounted, there exists
little or no reason to allow the exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees adjudicated in favor of the appellee.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration having

been denied for lack of merit and for being pro forma he
came to us for review. He claims that the trial court found
CATHAY guilty of gross negligence amounting to malice
and bad faith in: (a) detaching the wrong coupon; (b) using
that error to deny confirmation of his return flight; and, (c)
directing petitioner to prematurely return to San Francisco
to verify his missing coupon. He also underscores the
scornful and demeaning posture of CATHAY’s employees
toward him. He argues that since findings of fact of the
trial court are entitled to the highest degree of respect from
the appellate courts, especially when they were supported
by evidence, it was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to
strike out the award of moral and exemplary damages as
well as attorney’s fees allegedly for lack of basis.
In its Comment, CATHAY firmly maintains that it did
not breach its contract of carriage with petitioner. It argues
that it is only when a passenger is confirmed on a
particular flight and on a particular date specifically stated
in his ticket that its refusal to board the passenger will
result in a breach of contract. And even assuming that
there was breach of contract, there was no fraud or bad
faith on the part of CATHAY as to justify the award of
moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees in favor
of petitioner.
There are two (2) main issues that confront the Court:
first, whether a breach of contract was committed by
CATHAY when it failed to confirm the booking of petitioner
for its 1 July 1988 flight; and, second, whether the carrier
was liable not only for actual damages but also for moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for failing to
book petitioner on his return flight to the Philippines.

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

We find merit in the petition. CATHAY undoubtedly

committed a breach of contract when it refused to confirm
petitioner’s flight reservation back to the Philippines on
account of his missing flight coupon. Its contention that
there was no contract of carriage that was breached
because petitioner’s ticket was open-dated is untenable. To
begin with, the round trip ticket issued by the carrier to the
passenger was in itself a complete written contract by and
between the carrier and the passenger. It had all the
elements of a complete written contract, to wit: (a) the
consent of the contracting parties manifested by the fact
that the passenger agreed to be transported by the carrier
to and from Los Angeles via San Francisco and Hongkong
back to the Philippines, and the carrier’s acceptance to
bring him to his destination and then back home; (b) cause
or consideration, which was the fare paid by the passenger
as stated in his ticket; and, (c) object, which was the
transportation of the passenger from the place of departure
to the place 6of destination and back, which are also stated
in his ticket. In fact, the contract of carriage in the instant
case was already partially executed as the carrier complied
with its obligation to transport the passenger to his
destination, i.e., Los Angeles. Only the performance of the
other half of the contract—which was to transport the
passenger back to the Philippines—was left to be done.
Moreover, Timothy Remedios, CATHAY’S reservation and
ticketing agent, unequivocally testified that petitioner
indeed had reservation booked for travel—

Q: Were you able to grant what they wanted, if not, please

cstate why?
A: I was able to obtain a record of Mr. Singson’s computer
profile from my flight reservations computer. I verified
that Mr. Singson did indeed have reservations booked
for travel: Los Angeles to San Francisco, San Francisco
to Hongkong to Manila. I then proceeded to revalidate
their tickets but was surprised to observe that Mr.
Singson’s

________________

6 See Filipinas Peralta de Guerrero, et al. v. Madrigal Shipping Co.,

Inc., 106 Phil. 485 (1959).
 159

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 159

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

ticket did not contain a flight coupon for San Francisco to

Hongkong. His ticket did, however, contain a flight
coupon for San Francisco to Los Angeles which was
supposed to have been utilized already, that is, supposed
to have been removed by U.S. Air when he checked in
San Francisco
7
for his flight from San Francisco to Los
Angeles (italics supplied).

Clearly therefore petitioner was not a mere “chance

passenger with no superior right to be boarded on a specific
flight,” as erroneously claimed by CATHAY and sustained
by the appellate court.
Interestingly, it appears that CATHAY was responsible
for the loss of the ticket. One of two (2) things may be
surmised from the circumstances of this case: first, US Air
(CATHAY’s agent) had mistakenly detached the San
Francisco-Hongkong flight coupon thinking that it was the
San Francisco-Los An-geles portion; or, second, petitioner’s
booklet of tickets did not from issuance include a San
Francisco-Hongkong flight coupon. In either case, the loss
of the coupon was attributable to the negligence of
CATHAY’s agents and was the proximate cause of the non-
confirmation of petitioner’s return flight on 1 July 1988. It
virtually prevented petitioner from demanding the
fulfillment of the carrier’s obligations under the contract.
Had CATHAY’s agents been diligent in double checking the
coupons they were supposed to detach from the passengers’
tickets, there would have been no reason for CATHAY not
to confirm petitioner’s booking as exemplified in the case of
his cousin and flight companion Tiongson whose ticket
booklet was found to be in order. Hence, to hold that no
contractual breach was committed by CATHAY and totally
absolve it from any liability would in effect put a premium
on the negligence of its agents, contrary to the policy of the
law requiring common carriers to exercise extraordinary
diligence.

______________

7 Deposition of Mr. Timothy Remedios. See Original Records, p. 150.

160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals
With regard to the second issue, we are of the firm view
that the appellate court seriously erred in disallowing
moral and exemplary damages. Although the rule is that
moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of
carriage may only be recoverable in instances 8
where the
mishap results in the death of a passenger,
9
or where the
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, there are situations
where the negligence of the carrier is so gross and reckless
as to virtually amount to bad faith, in which case, the
passenger10 likewise becomes entitled to recover moral
damages.
In the instant case, the following circumstances
attended the breach of contract by CATHAY, to wit: First,
as heretofore discussed, the ticket coupon corresponding to
the San Francisco-Hongkong flight was missing either due
to the negligence of CATHAY’s agents in improperly
detaching petitioner’s flight coupons or failing to issue the
flight coupon for San Francisco-Hongkong in the ticket
booklet; second, petitioner and his cousin presented their
respective ticket booklets bearing identical itineraries to
prove that there had been a mistake in removing the
coupons of petitioner. Furthermore, CATHAY’s Timothy
Remedios testified that he was able to ascertain from his
flight reservations computer that petitioner indeed had
reservations booked for travel on their return flight, but
CATHAY apparently ignored the clear evidential import of
these facts and peremptorily refused to confirm petitioner’s
flight—while ready to confirm his traveling companion’s
identically routed plane ticket—on the lame and flimsy
excuse that the existence and validity of the missing ticket
must first be verified; third, petitioner was directed by
CATHAY to go to its San Francisco office and make the
necessary verification concerning the lost coupon himself.
This, notwithstanding the fact that CATHAY was
responsible for

_______________

8 Arts. 1764 and 2206, New Civil Code.

9 Art. 2220, New Civil Code; China Airlines, Ltd. v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73835, 17 January 1989, 169 SCRA 226.
10 See Fores v. Miranda, 105 Phil. 266 (1959).

161

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 161

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

the loss of the ticket and had all the necessary equipment,
e.g., computers, fax and telex machines and telephones
which could facilitate the verification right there at its Los
Angeles Office.
CATHAY’s allegation that it never required petitioner to
go to San Francisco is unpersuasive. Petitioner
categorically testified that a lady employee of CATHAY in
Los Angeles “insisted that we11take the matter (up) with
their office in San Francisco.” In fact, it even appeared
from the evidence that it was the San Francisco office
which arranged for his return
12
flight to the Philippines and
not the Los Angeles office. Moreover, due deference must
be accorded the trial court’s finding that petitioner was
indeed sent by CATHAY to its San Francisco office to
verify. For good and sound reasons, this Court has
consistently affirmed that review of the findings of fact of
the trial court is not a function that appellate courts
ordinarily undertake,
13
such findings being as a rule binding
and conclusive. It is true that certain exceptions have
become familiar. However, nothing in the records warrants
a review based on any of these well-recognized exceptions;
and, fourth, private respondent endeavored to show that it
undertook the verification of the lost coupon by sending a
telex to its Hongkong Office. It likewise tried to justify the
five (5) days delay in completing the verification process,
claiming that it was due to the time difference between
Hongkong and Los Angeles and the coinciding non-working
days in the United States. The following dialogue between
Consul Cortez and Cathay’s reservation and ticketing
agent Timothy Remedios can be enlightening—

Q: What official action did you in turn take?

A: While Mr. Singson was still in my office I sent a telex
out at approximately 10:00 a.m. on 30 June 1988 to
Hongkong Accounting Office and copied San Francisco
ticket

_______________

11 TSN, 2 February 1989, pp. 11 and 17.

12 Id., p. 22.
13 Alitalia Airways v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77011, 24 July 1990,
187 SCRA 763, 769-770.

162

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

office since Mr. Singson advised he might not be able

to return to my office but would be going to San
Francisco. 10:00 a.m. on 30 June 1988 in Los Angeles
is however 2:00 a.m. on 1 July 1988 in Hongkong and
 since office hours start at 9:00 a.m. in Hongkong, no
reply was instantly sent back to me. The response was
sent out from Hongkong on 2 July 1988 at
approximately 12:00 noon (Hongkong time) and was
received immediately by the Los Angeles telex
machine. However, 12:00 noon, 2 July 1988 Hongkong
time was 8:00 p.m. 1 July 1988 in Los Angeles where
office hours close at 5:00 p.m. The Los Angeles office
was closed on 2 and 3 July 1988 being Saturday and
Sunday and also closed 4 July 1988 for a public
holiday (Independence day) so the reply from
Hongkong was14 not read until 5 July 1988, 8:30 Los
Angeles time.

But far from helping private respondent’s cause, the

foregoing testimony only betrayed another act of negligence
committed by its employees in Hongkong. It will be
observed that CATHAY’s Hongkong Office received the
telex from Los Angeles on 1 July 1988 at approximately
2:00 a.m. (Hongkong time) and sent out their response only
on 2 July 1988 at 12:00 noon. In spite of the fact that they
had access to all records and facilities that would enable
them to verify in a matter of minutes, it strangely took
them more than twenty-four (24) hours to complete the
verification process and to send their reply to Los Angeles.
The inevitable conclusion is that CATHAY’s Hongkong
personnel never acted promptly and timely on the request
for verification.
Besides, to be stranded for five (5) days in a foreign land
because of an air carrier’s negligence is too exasperating an
experience for a plane passenger. For sure, petitioner
underwent profound distress and anxiety, not to mention
the worries brought about by the thought that he did not
have enough money to sustain himself, and the
embarrassment of

_______________

14 TSN, 29 September 1989, p. 9.

163

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 163

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

having been forced to seek the generosity of relatives and

friends.
Anent the accusation that private respondent’s
personnel were rude and arrogant, petitioner failed to
adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim.
Nonetheless, such fact will not in any manner affect the
disposition of this case. Private respondent’s mistake in
removing the wrong coupon was compounded by several
other independent acts of negligence above-enumerated.
Taken together, they indubitably signify more than
ordinary inadvertence or inattention and thus constitute a
radical departure from the extraordinary standard of care
required of common carriers. Put differently, these
circumstances reflect the carrier’s utter lack of care and
sensitivity to the needs of its passengers, clearly
constitutive of gross negligence, recklessness and wanton
disregard of the rights of the latter, acts evidently
indistinguishable or no different from fraud, malice and
bad faith. As the rule now stands, where in breaching the
contract of carriage the defendant airline is shown to have
acted fraudulently, with malice or in bad faith, the award
of moral and exemplary
15
damages, in addition to actual
damages, is proper.
However, the P500,000.00 moral damages and
P400,000.00 exemplary damages awarded by the trial court
have to be reduced. The well-entrenched principle is that
the grant of moral damages depends upon the discretion16
of
the court based on the circumstances of each case. This
discretion is limited by the principle that the “amount
awarded should not be palpably and scandalously
excessive” as to indicate that it was the result
17
of prejudice
or corruption on the part of the trial court. Damages are
not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of
the defendant. They are awarded only to

_________________

15 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60501, 5

March 1993, 219 SCRA 520, 527.
16 Prudencio v. Alliance Transport System, Inc., No. L-33836, 16 March
1987, 148 SCRA 440.
17 Siguenza v. Court of Appeals, No. L-44050, 16 July 1985, 137 SCRA
570.

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

alleviate the moral suffering that the injured party had 18

undergone by reason of the defendant’s culpable action.
There is no hard-and-fast rule in the determination of what
would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case
must be governed by its own peculiar facts.
In the instant case, the injury suffered by petitioner is
not so serious or extensive as to warrant an award
amounting to P900,000.00. The assessment of P200,000.00
as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages
in his favor is, in our view, reasonable and realistic.
On the issue of actual damages, we agree with the Court
of Appeals that the amount of P20,000.00 granted by the
trial court to petitioner should not be disturbed. Petitioner
categorically testified that he incurred the amount during
the period of his delay in departing from the United States
—

Q: Will you kindly tell the Court what expenses if any did
you incur for these x x x days from July 1 until you
were able to leave on July 6, 1988?
A: Well, it is true we stayed in the house of my nephew
but still we had to spend for our food and I left him
some around five hundred dollars for our stay for
around five days.
Q: How about your meals?
A: For our meals, we have to eat outside.
Q: Will you tell, more or less, how much you spent for your
meals?
xxxx
A: For every meal we spend around thirty dollars each.
Q: And this is for how many days?
A: From July 1, up to the 6th in the morning, sir.
Q: So more or less how many in pesos did you spend for
this period of waiting from July 1 to 6?
19
A: Twenty thousand pesos, sir.

__________________

18 R & B Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate

Court, G.R. No. 64515, 22 June 1984, 129 SCRA 736.
19 TSN, 2 February 1989, pp. 23-24.

165

VOL. 282, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 165

Singson vs. Court of Appeals

In the absence of any countervailing evidence from private

respondent, and in view of the negligence attributable to it,
the foregoing testimony suffices as basis for actual
damages as determined by the court a quo.
As regards attorney’s fees, they may be awarded when
the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff
to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest. It was therefore erroneous for the Court of
Appeals to delete the award made by the trial court;
 consequently, petitioner should be awarded attorney’s fees
and the amount of P25,000.00, instead of P100,000.00
earlier awarded, may be considered rational, fair and
reasonable
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the 14
July 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED.
Private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner P20,000.00
for actual damages as fixed by the trial court, plus
P200,000.00 for moral damages, P50,000.00 for exemplary
damages and P25,000.00 for attorney’s fees. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Vitug and Kapunan, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted, reviewed decision reversed.

Note.—In breach of contract of carriage by air, moral

damages are awarded only if the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.(Philippine Air Lines vs.
Miano, 242 SCRA 235 [1995])

——o0o——

166

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.