1.
Northwes Northwestt Airline Airlines s v Chiong Chiong,, January January 31, 2008 2008 Facts Philimare, as the authorie! Phili""ine agent o# $rans%cean, hire! Chiong as thir! engineer o# $rans%cean $rans%cean&s &s vessel '() *l+ia. u+se-uently, u+se-uently, Philmare !is"atche! !is"atche! a letter o# guarantee to C /utchins an! Co., $ran%cean&s agent at the an iego Port, conrming Chiong&s arrival in time to +oar! the vessel. For this "ur"ose, Philimare "urchase! #or Chiong a Northwest "lane ticet #or an iego #rom 'anila. Chiong, on -ueue at the checin counter, was in#orme! that his name !i! not a""ear in the list o# conrme! !e"arting "assengers. /e was !irecte! to s"ea to a man stan!ing outsi!e outsi!e the Northwes Northwest&s t&s counters counters #rom #rom whom Chiong coul! allege!l allege!ly y o+tain o+tain a +oar!ing +oar!ing "ass. Posthaste, Chiong a""roache! the man +ut having no 4100 to "ay #or the +oar!ing "ass he went on -ueue at the checin counter again an! "resente! his ticet where he was ma!e to wait. 5hen Chiong a""roache! Calvo i# she ha! money #or the +oar!ing "ass, the latter #oun! something amiss +ecause his "lane ticet was alrea!y conrme!. 6ltimately, Chiong was not allowe! to +oar! the 7ight an! was una+le to wor at the '() *l+ia. t a""ea a""ears rs that that Chion Chiong&s g&s name name was cross crosse! e! out out an! su+st su+stitu itute! te! with with 95. 95. Costin Costine9 e9 in Northwest&s Air Passenger 'ani#est. Chiong !eman!e! as recom"ense: ;1< the amount e-uivalent to Chiong&s salary un!er the latter&s latter&s Crew Crew Agreeme Agreement nt with $ran $rans%ce s%cean= an= ;2< P1>,000 P1>,000 #or Chiong&s Chiong&s e?"enses e?"enses in #etchin #etching g an! +ringing his #amily #rom amar to 'anila= ;3< P>00,000 as moral !amages= an! ;@< P>00,000 as legal #ees. 5hen Northwest !emurre!, Chiong le! a com"laint #or +reach o# contract o# carriage. Northw Northwest est contra contra!ic !icte! te! the claim claim that that it +reac +reache! he! its contra contract ct o# carri carriage age with with Chion Chiong, g, reiterating that Chiong ha! no cause o# action against it +ecause "er its recor!s, Chiong was a 9no show9 "assenger. $he $C $C ren!ere! ren!ere! a ecision n!ing n!ing "re"on!era "re"on!erance nce o# evi!ence evi!ence in #avor o# Chiong, an! an! hol!ing Northwest lia+le #or +reach o# contract o# carriage. $he $C rule! that the evi!ence a!!uce! +y the "arties su""orte! the conclusion that Chiong was !eli+erately "revente! #rom checingin an! his +oar!ing "ass unBustia+ly withhel! to accommo!ate an American "assenger +y the name o# 5. Costine. $he CA arme! the $C ruling. ssue 5hether Northwest +reache! its contract o# carriage with Chiong an! i# so, whether it is lia+le #or com"ensatory, actual, moral an! e?em"lary !amages, attorney&s #ees, an! costs o# suit uling n a!!ition a!!ition to his testimony testimony,, Chiong&s Chiong&s evi!ence evi!ence consiste consiste! ! o# a Northwes Northwestt ticet, ticet, Chiong&s Chiong&s "ass"ort an! seaman service recor! +oo !uly stam"e! at the PCD counter, an! the testimonies o# Calvo Calvo,, Flore Florenc ncio io Dome, Dome, an! Phi Phili li"" ""ine ine %verse %verseas as *m"loy *m"loymen mentt an! an! A!min A!minist istrat ration ion ;P%*A< ;P%*A< "ersonnel who all i!entie! the signature an! stam" o# the PCD on Chiong&s "ass"ort. Northwest !i! not "resent any evi!ence to su""ort its +elate! !e#ense that Chiong !e"arte! #rom the Phili""ines on A"ril 1E, 18 to wor as $hir! *ngineer on +oar! '() *l+ia un!er the original crew agreement. agreement. ts +are#ace! +are#ace! claim that Chiong was a noshow "assenger was +elie! +y the recor!s. *ven i# Chiong le#t the Phili""ines on A"ril 1E, 18, it woul! not necessarily "rove that Chiong was a 9noshow9 on A"ril 1, 18. Neither !oes it negate the alrea!y esta+lishe! #act that Chiong ha! a conrme! ticet #or A"ril 1, 18, an! rst "asse! through the PCD counter without !elay, then reache! an! was at the Northwest checin counters on time #or the sche!ule! 7ight. Northwest +reache! its contract o# carriage with Chiong. $ime an! again, we have !eclare! !eclare! that a contract o# carriage, carriage, in this case, air trans"ort, trans"ort, is "rimarily inten!e! to serve the traveling "u+lic an! thus, im+ue! with "u+lic interest. $he law govern governing ing common common carrier carriers s conse-u conse-uentl ently y im"oses im"oses an e?actin e?acting g stan!ar stan!ar! ! o# con!uc con!uct. t. As the aggrieve! "arty, Chiong only ha! to "rove the e?istence o# the contract an! the #act o# its non "er#ormance +y Northwest, as carrier, in or!er to +e awar!e! com"ensatory an! actual !amages. Article 2220 o# the Civil Co!e o# the Phili""ines, an awar! o# moral !amages, in +reaches o# contract, is in or!er u"on a showing that the !e#en!ant acte! #rau!ulently or in +a! #aith. Ga! #aith !oes not sim"ly connote +a! Bu!gment or negligence. t im"orts a !ishonest "ur"ose or some
moral o+li-uity an! conscious !oing o# a wrong. t means +reach o# a nown !uty through some motive, interest or ill will that "artaes o# the nature o# #rau!. $he awar! o# e?em"lary !amages is also correct given the evi!ence that Northwest acte! in an o""ressive manner towar!s Chiong. Attorney&s #ees may +e awar!e! when a "arty is com"elle! to litigate or incur e?"enses to "rotect his interest, or where the !e#en!ant acte! in gross an! evi!ent +a! #aith in re#using to satis#y the "laintiH&s "lainly vali!, Bust an! !eman!a+le claim.
