2. Singapore Airlines v. CA Digest

Singapore Airlines v. CA, 243 SCRA (1995)

Facts: Rayos Rayos was was an overse overseas as cont contrac ractt worke workerr who who had had a renew renewed ed contra contract ct with with the the  Arabian American American Oil Company (Aramco). As part of Aramco's Aramco's policy policy its employees employees ret!rnin" ret!rnin" to #hahran #hahran $a!di Arabia from %anila are allowed to claim reimb!rsement reimb!rsement for  amo!nts paid for e&cess ba""a"e of !p to  kilo"rams as lon" as it is properly s!pported by receipt. On April *+ Rayos took a $in"apore Airlines ($,A) fli"ht to report for his new assi"nment with a -kilo"ram e&cess ba""a"e for which he paid //0.. Aramco reimb!rsed said amo!nt !pon presentation of the e&cess ba""a"e ticket. ,n #ecember *+ Rayos learned that he was one of several employees bein" investi"ated by Aramco for fra!d!lent claims. 1e immediately asked his wife to seek a writt written en confi confirma rmatio tion n from from $,A that that he indee indeed d paid paid for an e&cess e&cess ba"" ba""a" a"e e of  kilo"rams. On #ecember  *+ $,A's mana"er 2ohnny 3hoo notified 4eatri5 of  their inability to iss!e the certification re6!ested beca!se their records showed that only three three kilo"ra kilo"rams ms were were entered entered as e&cess e&cess and accordin accordin"ly "ly char"ed char"ed.. $,A iss!ed iss!ed the certification re6!ested by the spo!ses Rayos only on April + *+ after its investi"ation of the anomaly and after 4eatri5 assisted assisted by a lawyer threatened threatened it with a laws!it. 7his delay ca!sed Rayo8s contract with Aramco not bein" renewed. Rayo s!es $,A. $,A blames A9 $,A claimed that it was not liable to the Rayoses beca!se the tamperin" was committed by its handlin" a"ent hilippine Airlines (A9). $,A files a rd party complaint a"ainst A9. A9 answers that the tamperin" was $in"apore8s fa!lt. 2!d"e r!les for Rayo on the main case and for $in"apore in the rd party complaint. 2!d"ment for Rayo became final. A9 A9 appeals the rd party complaint claimi claimin" n" for for the the first first time time that that Rayo Rayo was was not not entit entitled led to dama" dama"es es from from $in"a $in"apor pore e beca!se beca!se his contract contract with Aramco Aramco was not renewe renewed d beca!se beca!se of his !nsatis !nsatisfac factory tory performance. ,ss!e: ;hether or not A9 can validly assail for the first time on appeal the trial co!rt's decision s!stainin" s!stainin" the validity of Rayo8s complaint a"ainst $,A if A9 A9 did not raise this iss!e in the lower co!rt. 1eld: 2!d"ment for Rayo bein" final A9 may not 6!estion it. A rd-party defendant is allowed allowed to set !p in his answer the defense defenses s which which the rd-party rd-party plaintiff plaintiff (ori"inal (ori"inal defendant) has or may have a"ainst the ori"inal plaintiff's claim. 1owever he m!st do so in his rd party answer and not raise it for the st time on appeal. A9 sho!ld have raised in its rd party answer everythin" that it may conceivably interpose by way of its defense defense incl!din" specific denials of alle"ations alle"ations in the main complaint which implicated it alon" with $in"apore.