Republic of the Philippines National ]udicial Region

Begionut @rful @ourt Manila

- versus -







The complainant, by himself, respectfully files this complaint autl in pursuance thereof the eauses of action are narrated hereunder.

@be lBeifiies


The complainan! BERTENI CATALUNIA CAUSING, is a lawyer by profession who, in partnership with fellow lawyers, holds his private law office at his resiclence at unit L, No. 2368 Leon Guinto st. corner IB Roxas st., Malate, Manila, where he may be served with notices and other

other details of his being a lawyer are written below his name at the end of the body of this Complaint.



3' The defendant is Cebu Air, Inc., that is k,ow, popurarly as Cebu Pacific Air or Cebu pacific, whose principar office of business is at Airline operations Cent"., Dorrestic Road,
1301 Pasay City, where processes of this court.

it may be served summons ancl other

4. The general manager of the Chief Executive officer (CEo) of the respondent is Lance y. Gokongwei, wrro may be at his office in that giI:" ad"clress personally served or by substituted service through his office staffers o. se.ret ary if personal service of summons cannot be had, o=po., persons who may be relied upon to appreciate the importance of the papers served o, hi.r-, in accordance with the doctrine announced in viila Rey Transit tt. Fnr. Enst Motor Corporntion, G.R. No. L_g7ggg, Jai-ruary Zl, lg7g, where a
service on assistant general manager was held as proper on the corporation; and in dozens of other case raws tr-rat ruled.

5. There is almost nothing in the Internet that shows who are the corporate secretary, keasurer and in-house counsel of the defendant, the reason that the plaintiff cannot name anyone of them as also proper persons to be servecl on
the summons of this case.





At 6 to 8 pm, the plaintiff went to the Bureau of Imrnigration jail at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig to talk to his clientKimHanJuregardinghiscaseforaIpJ.tuiion.-



8:30 pm, he arrived at his office-resider-rce at 2368 Leon Guinto st. corner JB Roxas st., Malate,


1, No.



since thery the plaintiff attended to his clie'ts at his office, including the interviewing and examinatio. of witnesses for the judicial affidavits to b" pr.uunted at the Metropolitan


tTrial Court of Las Piflas, Branch 79, to prove the merit of his motion to quash.

9. Among the pleadings he wrote during that night were the judicial affidavits of witnesses Leonardo L. Mateo and Candido L. Mateo Jr., manifestation to set for hearing
Petition for Bail of Kim Han Ju and motion to set hearing the motion to dismiss of the case People vs. saturnino Grutas, Criminal Case Nos. 11-281562.

10.The plaintiff completed the examination of Leonardo L. Mateo and Candido L. Mateo Jr. and the writing of their judicial affidavits at 1:00 a.m. of 12 February 2A12.


a measure of diligence and prudence, the plaintiff

decided not to sleep for fear that he may not be able to wake up in time to take his scheduled 5:20 a.m. flight with Cebu Pacific for General Santos City.

12.His flight details are as follows:

No. 5J-991 Time of departure: 520Hours (meaning, S:20 a.m.) Date of departure: 12 February 2013, Tuesday Arrival at Gensan: 710Hours (meaning, T:70 a.m.) Route: Manila City to General Santos City


13.The plaintiff packed up his travelling bag and fixed his computer bag to bring the case folder and other cases for he had pleadings to write on, these acts he did to also take advantage of the lull time up to 3:00 a.m., his schecluled time of leaving from his office-residence to go to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3 to check in for the same flight.

3 | lr',*i1t:

fr ti

"j,.Tr;]4Fry --n



residence to the airport by his staffers, Jomar J. Fantillan, Ronelo Cesumision, and Hernani e. Cuare.
15. About3:20 a.m. or so, the plaintiff checked in at the check-in counter of Cebu Pacific for General Santos City.

At 3:00 a.m., the plaintiff was fetched from his office-


During the transactions at the check-in counter, the plaintiff had an issue with the check-in personnel as to whether or not he should have his baggage checked in, too, because he wanted to handcarry the travelling bag.


The check-in personnel suggested that the plaintiff should check in his baggage because it was more than seven (7)



Despite the plaintiff's insistence that he should handcarry the traveling bag because he wanted no delay in checking out of the airport at General santos City because he was afraid the delay may cause him to be late in his scheduled 8:30 a.m. hearing at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, tn that city,-for the case entitled "people of the Philippines vs. Abdul Macalao Arsad," Criminar Case No.

19. 20.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff gave traveling bag checked in.

in and he had his

As a result, the plaintiff paid Four Hundred Eighty Eight Pesos (P488.00) for the excess baggage.

The counter girl at the cashier's row issued the plaintiff a Cebu Pacific receipt as evidence of his payment for the excess baggage.

4 I {l !,ll'1\" * ,: n I I l

22. As an evidence of this payment, he attaches hereto as EXHIBIT " A" a copy of Cebu Pacific Office Receipt No.
2845007 dated 12 Feb 13 signed signature that is legible as "Julie."

by cashier collector in


23. Now, that the plaintiff had already checked in,

the counter-girl at the same cash counter issued the plaintiff also his boarding pass in two pieces of thermal paper, copies of this boarding pass are attached hereto as EXHIBIT "8" artd

EXHIBIT "8.1,."

24. Thereafter

the plaintiff proceeded to the x-ray scanning

machine before finally going to the assigned boarcling gate.

"Gate No.: 134" ln/as written on the boarding pass as the boarding gate assigned to the plaintiff as a flyer to General Santos City on board 5J-991. arrival at the lobby area of Gate No. 134 at about 3:30 a.m., the plaintiff sat on one of the seats in the second row facing the gate and that seat was just about five seats from the left end of the rows of seats.

26. upon


The plaintiff sat and in a little while, he felt sleepy that he immediately positioned his self to take a nap covering three seats and the plaintiff closed my eyes.


The next thing the plaintiff knew was when he woke up and he saw there was already daylight jusf outside the gate, considering that the gate and the walls are macle of clear

29. 30.

The plaintiff asked the people he saw as his seatmates on whether the flight for General Santos City had already left.

They told the plaintiff that the plane already left and one of them even told him that she was inclined to wake me up

as they heard a name being paged or announcecl to proceed to the boarding gate No. 134.


Then the plaintiff thought of raking a photo of him sitting at the lobby seat area in front of Boarding Gate No. 134 and the plaintiff asked a woman passenger to do so for him and she took a shot of me using my Samsung Galaxy cellular phone.


The photo is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "C."

After that, the plaintiff glanced at his cellular phone again and it showed there that the time after the taking of the
picture was 7:01 a.m.


the plaintiff stood up and proceeded to the nearby gate counters where he saw dozens of staffers of Cebu Pacific.

Now, to make sure whether the plane had left,


The plaintiff asked all of them and they confirmed to him that the plane for General Santos City had already left.


They asked for the plaintiff's name and after he gave it they checked on the computer and they saicl that the plaintiff's name was announced many times but the plaintiff

never showed up.


The plaintiff countered that it was not enougl'L for them to just be contented to announcing names because those passengers who involuntarily fell asleep cannot hear whatever announcements they would make.


The plaintiff also lectured the staffers that at least they exercised more diligence by tapping the shouklers of all those who fell asleep at Boarding Gate No. 134.



The plaintiff continued his lecture that between those who are asleep and those who are awake, tl-rose who are awake who have the obligation to attend to the passengers
have the obligation to wake up those who are asleep.


The plaintiff also insisted that because he already checked in as early as 3:30 a.m. while the departure time was yet 5:20 a.m. and that the plaintiff in fact checked in his baggage, the only reason after eliminating all other possibilities that he did not show up to the announcement should only be that
he fell asleep.

4'1,. And if the only conclusion left when the passenger being announced did not show up is he or she was asleep, they should have at least the temerity to wake up all passengers
sleeping at the lobby seats in front of Boarding Gate No. 134;


The plaintiff made clear to them that their contracts of carriage are clothed with public interest that they are obligated to perform their best to serve the passengers and ensure that the purposes of the contract of carriage is fulfilled.
The airlines such as Cebu Pacific have the utmost duty to the people who place the fate of their lives ancl comforts in the hands of these airline companies.



Then the plaintiff took several shots of the Cebu Pacific personnel through the same cellular phone and a copy of one of these photos is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "D."

45. The plaintiff also took photos of the lobby area in front of
Boarding Gate No. 134 and copies attached hereto as ANNEXT'E" series.


these photos are



Aside from the client in that case, whose client's name is Abdul Macalao Arsad, the plaintiff also felt embarrassed because the plaintiff had an appointment to meet with new clients that he recommended to me and he was contracted to be hired with an acceptance fee of Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P200,000.00);


After that hearing at the MTCC, the plaintiff had also a scheduled meeting with his other client, retired Colonel

Kadil Masahod and Roger D. Deocampo;


were put to naught ancl the plaintiff was embarrassed, too, and this contributed to his fears,
A11 these meetings

anxieties and besmirched reputation.


The plaintiff is a lawyer by profession and he is a member of Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Manila IV Chapter and his roll no. is 6A944.


The plaintiff has updated his IBP membership, paid his Professional Tax, and complied with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education as MCLE No. IV 007gZB issued 10 August2012.


As a lawyer, lawyers' life depends on reputation with the clients and some of the community who would have hire his


on the part of the plaintiff,

he charges for acceptance fees

of P200,000.00.


Now, the omission of the defendant in not waking up the plaintiff was deliberate because, as the plaintiff learned, it is the policy of the defendant not to wake up a1'ry sleeping passenger who had already checked in and who may be left


behind as long as announcements had already been made by their personnel.

63.It is also revolting to the conscience not to exert more efforts to comply with the law that requires all common carriers like the defendant to observe extraordinary diligence.

64.rn this case, the defendant kept at their limited policy of just announcing the names of the passengers who have already

in for final departure procedure ancl if these passengers do not show rp, that is all the defendant's
personnel need

to decide to leave behind the "missing"


65.To prove these facts further, the plaintiff executed an affidavit that he attaches hereto as ANNEX,H,, series.

@bt {,auEeE o[ E{rtforr
66.Because of breach of the contract of carriage, the plaintiff has a cause for actual damages in the form of the following:

a. Actual cost of the ticket the plaintiff bought from the defendant in the amount of 73,11C , 88 ;

b. Actual cost of the baggage payments made by the plaintiff in the u*orrlt of Fo.rr Hundrecl Eighty-Eight
Pesos (Pa88.00);

c. Actual damages for the Terminal Fee paid by the plaintiff in the amount of Two Hundred pesos

L0 li),:14*

fl" e

d. Actual damages as payment for the gasoline and driver in going to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3 in the reasonable amount of Five
Hundred Pesos (P500.00);

e. Actual damages for the taxicab the plaintiff took in returning to his office-residence from the NAIA 3 in
the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00);


Actual damages of paying the toll fee of P20 in going
to the airpor! and

g. Another P20 toll fee

in going home to his office-

6T.Because the defendant did not give the corresponding services of taking the plaintiff from Manila to General Santos City, for which the plaintiff pard, the defendant had the obligation to return the amount paid by the plaintiff for the said ticket.

68.The defendant did nof return the money of the plaintiff and it will not return because it has the policy of no ride no refund, in disrespect of that right of the plaintiff. 69.The defendant also has the obligation to return the fee paid by the plaintiff for the baggage because the baggage was not loaded on to the plane, anyway
TO.Despite this obligation, the defendant did not even have the temerity to refund the same amount.

71.The defendant also has the obligation to refund the terminal fee paid by the plaintiff as required of each of all passengers.




72.The obligation to refund the terminal fee was constituted because it did not benefit the plaintiff anyway because he was not allowed to ride the plane for which he paid for the ticket.

73.The defendant also has the obligation to refund Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) as the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in having his self fetched to NAIA 3 terminal to check in at the defendant's check-in counter.
74.The plaintiff also incurred an expense of P250.00 that he paid to the taxicab in fetching him from the airport to l-ris officeresidence.

75.The plaintiff also incurred
Pesos (P40.00).

toll fees in the amount of Forty

76.4s narrated in the facts above, the plaintiff is also clearly entitled to the moral damage award of Six Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00).

77.The plaintiff suffered sleepless nights, fears, anxieties and besmirched reputation before his clients.
78.The omission that led to that moral damage was deliberately done by the defendant because that was their policy, which

is never to wake up


to look for the missing

passengers who had already checked in.

79.The omission is a clear breach of contract of carriage and a violation of the law on common carrier at the same time.

80.The law expressly states that the degree of diligence required of common carriers is the degree of extraordinary




B1.It is also very clear that the same omission of r-rot r.traking up sleeping passengers even at the expellse of them failing to fly must be stopped at all cost for the good of the r"itling public.

B2.Moreover, the practice of the defenclarlt in not refurrcling the tickets of passengers who had checked in for their flights but who the rlefendarrt did not wake up to boarrl the planes MI]ST BE STCPPED AT ALL COST.
83.Her-rce, there is no issue tl-rat exernLplary aw,ard of Four Hundrecl Tl-rcusanri Pesos (P400,000.00) must be awarded to teach the clefelrclant a lesson so as not to repeat it on other passengers in th,: future.

B4.For this, th,e plaintiff is asking for an exetrrl'rla1y clamage award in ti-re ,r-mount of Four I{undrecl Thor-rsancl Pesos

85.For having been compelled to file this case irr order to vindicate ilis d rrnaged reputation and rights that forced him A pay the, filirrg fees of this case in tl"re arnount of ftABW.Al,, the plaintaiff also has a cause of action for tl-re refr-rncl of ttrer filing fees.



WHEREFORE, [t is r"e'spectfully prayed of the F{onorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be issuecl finclir-rg for the pl.rintiff ancl decreeing the following:

1. Refuncl


, the baggafe fee of p488.00, the Terminal Fee oI P200.00, 'rhe expenses for the driver ar-rc1 gasoline exprenses in the arnount of P500.00, the taxi fare of P250.00, the TolI Fees oi P40.00, and the filing fee in the an-rount of


tlie ticket of the plaintiff in the amount of

13 |

i"' ,1



the Toll Fees of P40.00, and the

filing fee in the amount of

2. Pay moral damage awards in the amount of P600,000.00; and

3. Puy the exemplary damage award

in the amount of

other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. February 12,
20 13, Manila.

Unit 7,2368
JB Roxas St. corner Leon

Guinto St., Malate, Manila


BERTENI CA A CAUSING IBP No. 894664 / 2012 / Manila PTR No. 0675267 / A3-27-2012 / Manrla Roll No. 60944/ MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007338, Augtrst 10, zalz

CIRILO P. SABARRE IR. IBP No. 856677 /01-03-2012
PTR No. 117312429 /01-03-2012 Roll No. 53639 / MCLE Compliance No. IV-0003255

DERVIN V. CASTRO IBP No. 836900/11-18-2010 up to 20tz
PTR No. 0335125 /07-03-2012 Roll No. 53624 /MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007336, August 10, 2012




of the philippines Citr. of Manila




residing at "ge, No. 2368 Leon Guinto st. corner ]B Roxas st., Malate, Manila Citr', after havi.g been sworn to in accordance witrr raw, do rrereby rleps5s that I caused the preparation of the foregoi,g complaint, h.tve reacl and understood the same, and the allegatiols therein are trtie of my personal knowredge and based on authentic





I further certify that other than this venue anrl juriscliction,
hetve not filecl any other action


having similar facts, parties ancl reliefs L'rrat'ed for in any quasi-judicial offices, other court or other tribunals, tltrc-l that should I learn one I undertake to inform the Honorable oifice about it within five (5) days from knowrecrge.


Certification of Non-Forum Shopping on th[$B 201 3 irr tl-re City of Manila. r

WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Verification and

ltflay of February

BERTENI CAT Integratecl Bar of the pli

CAUSING nes ID IVo. 60944
FEB 15

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ol' Fetrruary 2072 in the City of Manila. Doc. Xo.: 41L


INo.: 5/;
No.: P{- ;
). 14C55?7 Issued l?.?8.1? Untit 12"3i.13 / R0LL t{0,4069I ." rt,:. [!3ll I unlii 1?.J l?r1 I Coam, ]lc. 2011.018 MAillLA ..:: .:)i 3lF tiiii,.itl pruis Ciiit Aidg, lragrllrner Dtht, hkamuroi, ll&lh


ARY PUBLIG"{IN N0. 231430744000

Sr.ries of 2073.