COLLIN A. MORRIS and THOMAS P. WHITTIER, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Tenth Division and SCANDINA!IAN AIRLINES S"STEM, respondents. On February 14, 1978, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial ourt, !a"ati bran#h 14$ an a#tion for da%ages for brea#h of #ontra#t of air #arriage against respondent airline be#ause the y were bu%ped off fro% &'& Flight &( 89$, !anila) To"yo, To"yo, on February 14, 1978, despite a #onfir%ed boo"ing in the first #lass se#tion of the flight. *etitioners ollin '. !orris and Tho%as *. +hittier were '%eri#an #itiens- the vi#e)president for te#hni#al servi#e and the dire#tor for uality assur an#e, respe#tively, of &terling 'sia, 'sia, a foreign #orporation with regional headuarters at /o. 8741 *aseo de Ro0as, !a"ati ity. Respondent andinavian 'irline 'irline &yste% &'& for brevit y2 is and at ti%es %aterial heret o has been engaged in the #o%%er#ial air transport of passengers globally *etitioner !orris and #o)petitioner + hittier had a series of business %eetings with 3apanese business%en in 3apan fro% February 14 to February , 1978. They reuested their travel agent, &taats Travel &ervi#e. 5n#. to boo" the% as first #lass passengers in &'&. 't the airport, they were infor%ed that there were no %ore seats on the plane for whi#h reason they #ould not be a##o%%odated on the flight. &taats Travel &ervi#e #alled and #onfir%ed their boo"ing. Thereafter, petitioner
!orris and +hittier returned to respondent6s #he#")in #ounter anti#ipating that they would be allowed to #he#")in. owever, the #he#")in #ounter was #losed. +hen they infor%ed !s. *on#e, in #harge at the #he#") in #ounter that arrange%ents had been %ade with respondents offi#e, she ignored the%. ven respondent6s supervisor, Raul asa, ignored the% and refused to answer their uestion why they #ou ld not be a##o%odated in the flight despite their #onfir%ed boo"ing. !s. rlinda *on#e, &'& e%ployee on duty at the #he#")in #ounter on February 14, 1978 testified that they were not a##o%%odated on the flight be#ause they #he#"ed)in after the flight %anifest had been #losed forty 4:2 %inutes prior to the plane6s departure. Their na%es were #r ossed out and the s y%bols ;/O&;, %eaning /O &O+, written written after their na%es. The ;/O &O+; notation #ould %ean either that the boo"ed passengers of his travel do#u%ents were not at the #ounter at the ti%e of the #losing of the flight %anifest. 5&&<= +hether or not petitioners #o%plaint for da%ages against respondent for brea#h of #ontra#t of air #arriage be granted. R<>5/?= The petition has no %erit. ;To begin with, it %ust be e%phasied that a #ontra#t to transport passengers is uite different " ind and degree fro% any other #ontra#tual relations, and this is be#ause relation, whi#h an air #arrier sustains with the publi#. 5ts business is %ainly with the travelling publi#. 5t invites people business is %ainly with the traveling publi#. 5t invites people to avail @the%selvesA of the #o%forts and advantages it offers. The #ontra#t of air #arriage, therefore, generates a relation attended wit h a pubi# duty. /egle#t or %alfeasan#e of the #arrier6s e%ployees naturally #ould give ground for an a#tion for da%ages.; ;5n awarding %oral da%ages for brea#h of #ontra#t of #arriage, the brea#h %ust be wanton and deliberately inBurious or the one responsible a#ted fraudulently or with %ali#e or bad faith.;17 ;+here in brea#hing the #ontra#t of #arriage the defendant airline is not shown to have a#ted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for da%ages is li%ited to the natural and probable #onseuen#es of the brea#h of obligation whi#h the parties had foreseen or #ould have reasonably foreseen. 5n that #ase, su#h liability does not in#lude %oral and e0e%plary da%ages.;18;!oral da%ages are generally not re#overable in #ulpa #ontra#tual e0#ept when bad faith had been proven. owever, the sa%e da%ages %ay be re#overed when rea#h of #ontra#t of #arriage results in the death of a passenger.;
5n the instant #ase, assu%ing arguendo that brea#h of #ontra#t of #arriage %ay be attributed to respondent, petitioners6 travails were dire#tly tra#eable to their failure to #he#")in on ti%e, whi#h lewd to respondent6s refusal to a##o%%odate the% on the flight. ;The rule is that %oral da%ages are re#overable in a da%age suit predi#ated upon a brea#h of #ontra#t of #arriage only where a2 the %ishap result in the death of a passenger and b2 it is proved that the #arrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if death does not result. For having arrived at the airport after the #losure of the flight %anifest, respondent6s e%ployee #ould not be faulted for not entertaining petitioners6 ti#"ets and travel do#u%ents for pro#essing, as the #he#"ing in of passengers for &'& Flight &( 89$ was finished, there was no fraud or bad faith as would Bustify the #ourt6s award or nor%al da%ages. 's we find petitioners not entitled to %oral da%ages, ;an award of e0e%plary da%ages is li"ewise baseless.;$;+here the award of %oral and e0e%plary da%ages is eli%inated, so %ust the award for attorney6s fees be deleted.;