8/9/2019 019 Sps Zalamea v CA

1/3

019 Zalamea v. CA

G.R. No. 104235, 18 November 1993

TOPIC: Exception to the Application of Foreign LawsPONENTE: Nocon, J.

AUTOR:NOTES: (if applicable

!"mmar#$

The petitioners in !ala"ea were passengers of Trans #orl$ Airlines, %nc. (&T#A& who hel$ confir"e$ $isco'nte$ ticets. )etitioners were,howe*er, wait+liste$ an$ e*ent'all pre*ente$ fro" boar$ing the airplane beca'se T#A ha$ o*erbooe$ the flight an$ ga*e preference to otherpassengers who were hol$ers of f'll+fare ticets. T#A obser*e$ the practice of o*erbooing an$ the sste" of boar$ing priorities. S- hel$ T#A liablefor "oral $a"ages beca'se T#A $i$ not stip'late these policies in the contract an$ $i$ not infor" the petitioners of the o*erbooe$ con$ition of theflight or of the hierarch of priorities in booing passengers . T%A &a' () ba* +a(- &-e), +a(l() o -"' ()+orm /e((o)er' &-e) ( o"l* -aveea'(l# *o)e 'o, T%A e/ -em a' /a''e)er' "/ o -e la' m()"e. T%A' o)'(o"' *('rear* o+ /e((o)er' r(-' ma*e ( l(able )o o)l#

+or a"al b" moral *amae' a' &ell.

")e , 1984 l(-$isgr'ntle$ o*er Trans#orl$ Airlines, %nc./s re+"'al o aommo*ae -em () T%A l(- 006 *e/ar() +rom Ne&

7or o o' A)ele'$espite possession of confir"e$ ticets, /e((o)er' +(le* a) a(o) +or *amae'before 0aati 1T- 2r. 345.

RTC e('(o): A$*ocating petitioner/s position, the trial co'rt categoricall r'le$ that respon$ent Trans#orl$ Airlines (T#A breache$ its

contract of carriage with petitioners an$ that sai$ breach was &characteri6e$ b ba$ faith.&

O) a//eal, howe*er, the appellate co'rt fo'n$ that while there was a breach of contract on respon$ent T#A/s part, there was neither fra'$

nor ba$ faith beca'se 'n$er the -o$e of Fe$eral 1eg'lations b the -i*il Aerona'tics 2oar$ of the 7nite$ States of A"erica it is allowe$ too*erboo flights.

ACT!$

3. )etitioners+spo'ses -esar -. !ala"ea an$ S'thira !ala"ea, an$ their $a'ghter, Liana !ala"ea, p'rchase$ three (8airline ticets fro" the 0anila agent of respon$ent Trans#orl$ Airlines, %nc. for a flight to New 9or to Los Angeles onJ'ne , 3;:>> a."., an ho'r earlier than the sche$'le$ flight at 33:>>a.". b't were place$ on the wait+list beca'se the n'"ber of passengers who ha$ chece$ in before the" ha$ alrea$ taenall the seats a*ailable on the flight. Liana !ala"ea appeare$ as the No. 38 on the wait+list while the two other !ala"easwere liste$ as &No. 84, showing a part of two.&

4. O't of the 4= na"es on the wait list, the first == na"es were e*ent'all allowe$ to boar$ the flight to Los Angeles,incl'$ing petitioner -esar !ala"ea. The two others, on the other han$, at No. 84, being rane$ lower than ==, were notable to fl.

5. As it were, those hol$ing f'll+fare ticets were gi*en first priorit a"ong the wait+liste$ passengers. 0r. !ala"ea, whowas hol$ing the f'll+fare ticet of his $a'ghter, was allowe$ to boar$ the plane? while his wife an$ $a'ghter, who presente$the $isco'nte$ ticets were $enie$ boar$ing. Accor$ing to 0r. !ala"ea, it was onl later when he $isco*ere$ the he washol$ing his $a'ghter/s f'll+fare ticet.

. E*en in the next T#A flight to Los Angeles 0rs. !ala"ea an$ her $a'ghter, co'l$ not be acco""o$ate$ beca'se it wasalso f'll booe$. Th's, the were constraine$ to boo in another flight an$ p'rchase$ two ticets fro" A"erican Airlinesat a cost of Nine @'n$re$ Eighteen (;3> ollars.

RTC e('(o)$

a. 7pon their arri*al in the )hilippines, petitioners file$ an action for $a"ages base$ on breach of contract of air carriagebefore the 1T-. BC D'$g"ent is hereb ren$ere$ or$ering the $efen$ant to pa plaintiffs the following a"o'nts:

8/9/2019 019 Sps Zalamea v CA

2/3

(3 7S ;3>, or its peso e'i*alent at the ti"e of pa"ent representing the price of the ticets bo'ght bS'thira an$ Liana !ala"ea fro" A"erican Airlines, to enable the" to fl to Los Angeles fro" New 9or -it?(= 7S 35;.4;, or its peso e'i*alent at the ti"e of pa"ent, representing the price of S'thira !ala"ea/s ticetfor T#A Flight >>?(8 Eight Tho'san$ Nine @'n$re$ Thirt+Fo'r )esos an$ Fift -enta*os (), )hilippine -'rrenc,representing the price of Liana !ala"ea/s ticet for T#A Flight >>,(4 Two @'n$re$ Fift Tho'san$ )esos ()=5>,>>>.>>, )hilippine -'rrenc, as "oral $a"ages for all the

plaintiffs/(5 One @'n$re$ Tho'san$ )esos ()3>>,>>>.>>, )hilippine -'rrenc, as an$ for attorne/s fees? an$( The costs of s'it.

CA e('(o)$ #@E1EFO1E, in *iew of all the foregoing, the $ecision 'n$er re*iew is hereb 0O%F%E in that theawar$ of "oral an$ exe"plar $a"ages to the plaintiffs is eli"inate$, an$ the $efen$ant+appellant is hereb or$ere$ to pathe plaintiff.

a. 1espon$ent -A hel$ that "oral $a"ages are reco*erable in a $a"age s'it pre$icate$ 'pon a breach of contract ofcarriage onl where there is fra'$ or ba$ faith. Since it is a "atter of recor$ that o*erbooing of flights is a co""on an$accepte$ practice of airlines in the 7nite$ States an$ is specificall allowe$ 'n$er the -o$e of Fe$eral 1eg'lations b the-i*il Aerona'tics 2oar$, no fra'$ nor ba$ faith co'l$ be i"p'te$ on respon$ent Trans#orl$ Airlines.

b. 0oreo*er, while respon$ent T#A was re"iss in not infor"ing petitioners that the flight was o*erbooe$ an$ that e*en aperson with a confir"e$ reser*ation "a be $enie$ acco""o$ation on an o*erbooe$ flight, ne*ertheless it r'le$ thats'ch o"ission or negligence cannot 'n$er the circ'"stances be consi$ere$ to be so gross as to a"o'nt to ba$ faith.

c. Finall, it also hel$ that there was no ba$ faith in placing petitioners in the wait+list along with fort+eight (4>?(8 )5>,>>>.>> as an$ for attorne/s fees.(4 The costs of s'it.

(le* &(- !C$ Not satisfie$ with the $ecision, petitioners raise$ the case on petition for re*iew on certiorari an$ allege$the following errors co""itte$ b the respon$ent -o'rt of Appeal.

I!!UE

certificate "a be "a$e b a secretar of an e"bass or legation, cons'l general, cons'l, *ice+cons'l, or cons'laragent or b an officer in the foreign ser*ice of the )hilippines statione$ in the foreign co'ntr in which the recor$is ept, an$ a'thenticate$ b the seal of his office.

1espon$ent T#A relie$ solel on the state"ent of 0s. Gwen$oln Lather, its c'sto"er ser*ice agent, in her

$eposition that the -o$e of Fe$eral 1eg'lations of the -i*il Aerona'tics 2oar$ allows o*erbooing. No officialp'blication of sai$ co$e was presente$ as e*i$ence. Th's, respon$ent co'rtHs fin$ing that o*erbooing isspecificall allowe$ b the 7S -o$e of Fe$eral 1eg'lations has no basis in fact.

E*en if the clai"e$ 7.S. -o$e of Fe$eral 1eg'lations $oes exist, the sa"e is not applicable to the case at bar in

8/9/2019 019 Sps Zalamea v CA

3/3

accor$ance with the principle of lex loci contract's which re'ire that the law of the place where the airline ticetwas iss'e$ sho'l$ be applie$ b the co'rt where the passengers are resi$ents an$ nationals of the for'" an$ theticet is iss'e$ in s'ch State b the $efen$ant airline. Since the ticets were sol$ an$ iss'e$ in the )hilippines, theapplicable law in this case wo'l$ be )hilippine law.

Existing D'rispr'$ence explicitl states that o*erbooing a"o'nts to ba$ faith, entitling the passengers concerne$

to an awar$ of "oral $a"ages. %n Alitalia Airwas *. -o'rt of Appeals, where passengers with confir"e$ booings

were ref'se$ carriage on the last "in'te, this -o'rt hel$ that when an airline iss'es a ticet to a passengerconfir"e$ on a partic'lar flight, on a certain $ate, a contract of carriage arises, an$ the passenger has e*er right toexpect that he wo'l$ fl on that flight an$ on that $ate. %f he $oes not, then the carrier opens itself to a s'it forbreach of contract of carriage. #here an airline ha$ $eliberatel o*erbooe$, it too the ris of ha*ing to $epri*eso"e passengers of their seats in case all of the" wo'l$ show 'p for the chec in. For the in$ignit an$incon*enience of being ref'se$ a confir"e$ seat on the last "in'te, sai$ passenger is entitle$ to an awar$ of "oral$a"ages.

For a contract of carriage generates a relation atten$e$ with p'blic $'t I a $'t to pro*i$e p'blic ser*ice an$

con*enience to its passengers which "'st be para"o'nt to self+interest or enrich"ent.

1espon$ent T#A is still g'ilt of ba$ faith in not infor"ing its passengers beforehan$ that it co'l$ breach the

contract of carriage e*en if the ha*e confir"e$ ticets if there was o*erbooing. 1espon$ent T#A sho'l$ ha*eincorporate$ stip'lations on o*erbooing on the ticets iss'e$ or to properl infor" its passengers abo't thesepolicies so that the latter wo'l$ be prepare$ for s'ch e*ent'alit or wo'l$ ha*e the choice to ri$e with anotherairline.

1espon$ent T#A was also g'ilt of not infor"ing its passengers of its allege$ polic of gi*ing less priorit to

$isco'nte$ ticets. Neither $i$ it present an arg'"ent of s'bstance to show that petitioners were $'l apprise$ ofthe o*erbooe$ con$ition of the flight or that there is a hierarch of boar$ing priorities in booing passengers. %t ise*i$ent that petitioners ha$ the right to rel 'pon the ass'rance of respon$ent T#A, thr' its agent in 0anila, thenin New 9or, that their ticets represente$ confir"e$ seats witho't an 'alification. The fail're of respon$entT#A to so infor" the" when it co'l$ easil ha*e $one so thereb enabling respon$ent to hol$ on to the" aspassengers 'p to the last "in'te a"o'nts to ba$ faith. E*i$entl, respon$ent T#A place$ its self+interest o*er therights of petitioners 'n$er their contracts of carriage. S'ch conscio's $isregar$ of petitionersH rights "aesrespon$ent T#A liable for "oral $a"ages. To $eter breach of contracts b respon$ent T#A in si"ilar fashion in

the f't're, we a$D'$ge respon$ent T#A liable for exe"plar $a"ages, as well. %n the case of Al(al(a A(r&a#' v. Co"r o+ A//eal' , this -o'rt explicitl hel$ that a passenger is entitle$ to be

rei"b'rse$ for the cost of the ticets he ha$ to b' for a flight to another airline. Th's, instea$ of si"pl beingref'n$e$ for the cost of the 'n'se$ T#A ticets, petitioners sho'l$ be awar$e$ the act'al cost of their flight fro"New 9or to Los Angeles.

!C$

The awar$ to petitioners of attorne/s fees is also D'stifie$ 'n$er Article ==> or its peso e'i*alent at the ti"e of pa"ent representing the price of the ticets bo'ght b S'thira an$Liana !ala"ea fro" A"erican Airlines, to enable the" to fl to Los Angeles fro" New 9or -it?(= )5>,>>>.>> as "oral $a"ages?(8 )5>,>>>.>> as exe"plar $a"ages?(4 )5>,>>>.>> as attorne/s fees? an$(5 -osts of s'it.