You are on page 1of 12

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Baguio City THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 170141 JAPAN AIR INES, petitioner, vs.

JESUS SIMANGAN, respondent. DECISION RE!ES R.T., J." WHEN an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confir ed on a particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to e!pect that he "ould fly on that flight and on that date. #f he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. $ %he po"er to ad it or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act "hich cannot be interfered "ith even by &apan 'irlines (&')*. + #n this petition for revie" on certiorari,, petitioner &') appeals the- #1$ D%&i'io(4 )*+%) M*, -1, 200. o/ +0% Co1r+ o/ App%*l' #CA$ or)%ri(2 i+ +o p*, r%'po()%(+ J%'1' Si3*(2*( 3or*l *() %4%3pl*r, )*3*2%'5 *() #2$ R%'ol1+io( . o/ +0% '*3% &o1r+ )*+%) S%p+%36%r 28, 200. )%(,i(2 JA 7' 3o+io( /or r%&o('i)%r*+io(. T0% 8*&+' #n $..$, respondent &esus /i angan decided to donate a kidney to his ailing cousin, )oreto /i angan, in 0C)' /chool of 1edicine in )os 'ngeles, California, 0./.'. 0pon re2uest of 0C)', respondent undertook a series of laboratory tests at the National 3idney #nstitute in 4ue5on City to verify "hether his blood and tissue type are co patible "ith )oreto6s.7 8ortunately, said tests proved that respondent6s blood and tissue type "ere "ell9 atched "ith )oreto6s. : Respondent needed to go to the 0nited /tates to co plete his preli inary "ork9up and donation surgery. Hence, to facilitate respondent6s travel to the 0nited /tates, 0C)' "rote a letter to the ' erican Consulate in 1anila to arrange for his visa. #n due ti e, respondent "as issued an e ergency 0./. visa by the ' erican E bassy in 1anila. ; Having obtained an e ergency 0./. visa, respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket fro petitioner &') for 0/<$,=;>.?? and "as issued the corresponding boarding pass. . He "as scheduled to a particular flight bound for )os 'ngeles, California, 0./.'. via Narita, &apan.$? April 22, 2008

travel authority and personal articles "ere subAected to rigid i igration and security routines. $> %he ste"ardess asked respondent to sho" his travel docu ents. $..?. e!plaining that he "as issued a 0. $./. Respondent "ent to &')6s ground office and "aited there for three hours.?. #t argued.???. #n a nutshell.. visa "as cancelled.. @n /epte ber +$.?? as attorney6s &') denied the aterial allegations of the co plaint.+. the ste"ardess along "ith a &apanese and a 8ilipino haughtily ordered hi to stand up and leave the plane. $7 Respondent protested. r%'po()%(+ 9*' 613p%) o// +0% /li20+.>9 C9.$= While inside the airplane. /hortly after..@n &uly +. $. respondent filed an action for da ages against &') "ith the Regional %rial Court (R%C* in Calen5uela City. illion as e!e plary da ages and P>??. e!e plary da ages and attorney6s fees. He clai ed he "as not able to donate his kidney to )oretoD and that he suffered terrible e barrass ent and ental anguish. he "as infor ed that his travel docu ents "ere. a ong others.+. &uly . docketed as Civil Case No.. 'fter passing through said i igration and security procedures. $.. disposing as follo"s• WHERE8@RE. visa. &') alleged that respondent agreed to be rebooked on &uly . respondent "ent to Ninoy '2uino #nternational 'irport in the co pany of several relatives and friends. &')6s airline cre" suspected respondent of carrying a falsified travel docu ent and i puted that he "ould only use the trip to the 0nited /tates as a prete!t to stay and "ork in &apan.> += fees.+. $. illion as oral da ages. P$. =$. 'leAo rendered its decision in favor of respondent (plaintiff*.?? "hich "as deducted by &'). $: His pleas "ere ignored. indeed. boarding pass.+: &') also lodged a counterclai anchored on respondent6s alleged "rongful institution of the co plaint. He prayed that he be a"arded P./. he pleaded "ith &') to closely onitor his ove ents "hen the aircraft stops over in Narita. 'fter"ards. Audg ent is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the . $. &ust to allo" hi to board the plane. respondent "as allo"ed by &') to enter its airplane.+. in order. ++ Bispleased by the turn of events. +$ /ubse2uently. the date of his flight. #t prayed for litigation e!penses. the R%C presided by &udge 8loro P. that its failure to allo" respondent to fly on his scheduled departure "as due to Ea need for his travel docu ents to be authenticated by the 0nited /tates E bassyE +> because no one fro &')6s airport staff had encountered a parole visa before. +7 #t posited that the authentication re2uired additional ti eD that respondent "as advised to take the flight the follo"ing day. +.+? Respondent "as refunded the cost of his plane ticket less the su of 0/<>??.$+ His plane ticket. the plane took off and he "as left behind. respondent6s 0. 1ean"hile. He "as then constrained to go out of the plane. $$ He "as allo"ed to check9in at &')6s counter. +???.

+??>.???.???. %he defendant is engaged in transporting passengers by plane fro country to country and is therefore conversant "ith the travel docu ents. and %"o Hundred 8ifty %housand Pesos (P+>?.? Bisagreeing "ith the R%C Audg ent.???.> #t found that respondent "as Ehaughtily eAectedE.. the defendant violated the contract of carriageD that "hen the plaintiff "as ordered out of the plane under the prete!t that the genuineness of his travel docu ents "ould be verified it had caused hi e barrass ent and bes irched reputationD and that "hen the plaintiff "as finally not allo"ed to take the flight.8ive Hundred %housand Pesos (P>??.?? as attorney6s fees.. the appealed Becision is '88#R1EB "ith 1@B#8#C'%#@N. to the preAudice of the plaintiff not to kno" that the travel docu ents of the plaintiff are valid docu ents to allo" hi entry in the 0nited /tates.E . plus the cost of suit. . .??* as e!e plary da ages. • %he foregoing act of the defendant in ordering the plaintiff to deplane "hile already settled in his assigned seat clearly de onstrated that the defendant breached its contract of carriage "ith the plaintiff as passenger in bad faith and as such the plaintiff is entitled to oral and e!e plary da ages as "ell as to an a"ard of attorney6s fees. Ethere arose a perfected contract bet"een the . not liable for da ages. the a ount of P>??.+ CA R1li(2 #n a Becision. 'ppellant &'P'N '#R )#NE/ is ordered to pay appellee &E/0/ /#1'NF'N the reduced su s. %he fallo of the C' decision reads• WHERE8@RE.??* as oral da ages. &')6s airline staff Eshouted .= %he C' elucidated that since &') issued to respondent a round trip plane ticket for a la"ful consideration.plaintiff the a ount of P$.$.7 by &') and that Ehe "as certainly e barrassed and hu iliatedE. he suffered ore "ounded feelings and social hu iliation for "hich the plaintiff "as asking to be a"arded oral and e!e plary da ages as "ell as attorney6s fees.+. hence.???.: "hen.?? as e!e plary da ages and the a ount of P+>?. the C' affir ed the decision of the R%C "ith odification in that it lo"ered the a ount of oral and e!e plary da ages and deleted the a"ard of attorney6s fees.$ #t posited that it is the one entitled to recover on its counterclai .???. %he defendant should not be allo"ed to pretend. as follo"s. . dated 1ay . in the presence of other passengers. • %he reason given by the defendant that "hat pro pted the to investigate the genuineness of the travel docu ents of the plaintiff "as that the plaintiff "as not then carrying a regular visa but Aust a letter does not appear satisfactory. &') appealed to the C' contending that it is not guilty of breach of contract of carriage.???. %he R%C e!plained• #n su arily and insolently ordering the plaintiff to dise bark "hile the latter "as already settled in his assigned seat. %he a"ard of attorney6s fees is hereby BE)E%EB.?? as oral da ages.

ho"ever.+. its belated theory of novation. No other proof of appellee6s social standing. Being discretionary on the court.+ "as e!tinguished by novation "hen appellant and appellant agreed that appellee "ill instead take appellant6s flight to Narita on the follo"ing day.???.E . #t is inappropriate at bar. that appellant6s original obligation to carry appellee to Narita and )os 'ngeles on &uly +. &uly . Jr. inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be acco odated in the class contracted for a ounts to bad faith or fraud "hich entitles the passengers to the a"ard of oral da ages in accordance "ith 'rticle +++? of the Civil Code. deserves little attention.. v. %o 0s.???. relieving the inAured passenger of the duty to establish the fault of the carrier or of his e ployeesD and placing on the carrier the burden to prove that it "as due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. %he da age had been done.?? as e!e plary da ages needs to be reduced to a reasonable level. Lufthansa German Airlines .?. or by a "rongful or negligent act or o ission shall have a fair and Aust co pensation co ensurate to the loss sustained as conse2uence of the defendant6s act.. i. to stand up and arrogantly asked hi • %hat appellee possessed bogus travel docu ents and that he ight stay illegally in &apan are allegations "ithout substantiation. the a ount. breach of the contract of carriage creates against the carrier a presu ption of liability. the grant of P>??. • 1oreover. Besides. appellant6s atte pt to rebook appellee the follo"ing day "as too late and did not relieve it fro liability. 4uestions not taken up during the trial cannot be raised for the first ti e on appeal. the su of >??. diversion or a use ents that "ill serve to alleviate the oral suffering he has undergone.E =+ Nevertheless. should not be palpably and scandalously e! hi to produce his travel papers. %he a"ard of e!e plary da ages is designed to per it the . $.. oral da ages are e phatically not intended to enrich a co plainant at the e!pense of the defendant. the i ple entation of security easures ust be attended by basic courtesies.. • Here.?? is Aust and fair. $. • #n fact. the C' odified the da ages a"arded by the R%C. %hey are a"arded only to enable the inAured party to obtain eans. profession. %he C' ratiocinatedWhile the protection of passengers ust take precedence over convenience.???. #t e!plained- • 8unda ental in the la" on da ages is that one inAured by a breach of a contract. =? (0nderscoring ours and citations "ere o itted* Citing Ortigas. by reason of the defendant6s culpable action. the trial court6s a"ard of P$.=$ the C' declared that E(i*n contracts of co on carriage. 'lso.???.?? as oral da ages appears to be overblo"n. 8or. "ithout the least courtesy every hu an being is entitled toED .e.. and that Ehe "as co pelled to deplane on the grounds that his papers "ere fake. financial capabilities "as presented e!cept that he "as single and a business an.. by a si ple proof of inAury.

• WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ ERREB #N R0)#NF %H'% RE/P@NBEN% W'/ EN%#%)EB %@ 1@R') B'1'FE/. REC3)E//.?? is ade2uate under the circu stances. • WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ ERREB #N R0)#NF %H'% RE/P@NBEN% W'/ EN%#%)EB %@ EIE1P)'RG B'1'FE/ C@N/#BER#NF %H'%• '.???. • C. I''1%' &') poses the follo"ing issues 9 • #. &') B#B N@% 'C% #N ' W'N%@N 8R'0B0)EN%. • ###. Get. 1@R') B'1'FE/ 1'G BE 'W'RBEB #N BRE'CH @8 C@N%R'C% C'/E/ @N)G WHEN %HE BRE'CH #/ '%%ENBEB BG 8R'0B @R B'B 8'#%H. (Citations "ere o itted* When &')6s otion for reconsideration "as denied. 8R'0B0)EN%.courts to ould behavior that has socially deleterious conse2uences and its i position is re2uired by public policy to suppress the "anton acts of the offender. 'ppellee "as definitely co pelled to litigate in protecting his rights and in seeking relief fro appellant6s isdeeds.?? as attorney6s fees lacks factual basis. the su of P+>?.=. %HE )'W B#/%#NF0#/HE/ ' C@N%R'C%0') BRE'CH E88EC%EB #N F@@B 8'#%H 8R@1 @NE '%%ENBEB BG B'B 8'#%H. EIE1P)'RG B'1'FE/ 'RE N@% REC@CER'B)E #N BRE'CH @8 C@N%R'C% @8 C'RR#'FE 0N)E// %HE C'RR#ER #/ F0#)%G @8 W'N%@N. Hence.???. • B. REC3)E//. it resorted to the petition at bar. . &') B#B N@% 'C% 8R'0B0)EN%)G @R #N B'B 8'#%H '/ %@ EN%#%)E RE/P@NBEN% %@ 1@R') B'1'FE/. • B. C@N/#BER#NF %H'%• '. • ##. • %he a"ard of P+>?. &') W'/ N@% F0#)%G @8 BRE'CH @8 C@N%R'C%. '//01#NF ARGUENDO %H'% &') W'/ F0#)%G @8 BRE'CH. @PPRE//#CE @R 1')EC@)EN% 1'NNER '/ %@ EN%#%)E RE/P@NBEN% %@ EIE1P)'RG B'1'FE/. '//01#NF ARGUENDO %H'% &') W'/ F0#)%G @8 BRE'CH. the record is devoid of evidence to sho" the cost of the services of his counsel andHor the actual e!penses incurred in prosecuting his action. @PPRE//#CE @R 1')EC@)EN% C@NB0C%.

absurd or i possibleD (c* "here there is grave abuse of discretionD (d* "hen the Audg ent is based on a isapprehension of factsD (e* "hen the findings of facts are conflictingD (f* "hen the C'. We are not a trier of facts. We generally rely upon. "hich are being invoked by &'). .== (0nderscoring @urs* Basically. %he said e!ceptions. as a rule.=7 We have no Aurisdiction. are not found here. %he C' also gave its nod to the reasoning of the R%C e!cept as to the a"ards of da ages. "hich "ere reduced. there are three (. there "as no grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts or istaken and absurd inferences. )ike"ise. to reverse their findings. =. "ent beyond the issues of the case and the sa e is contrary to the ad issions of both appellant and appellee. %here is no indication that the findings of the C' are contrary to the evidence on record or that vital testi onies of &')6s "itnesses "ere disregarded. "hich "as deleted. • WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ ERREB #N N@% 8#NB#NF 8@R &') @N #%/ C@0N%ERC)'#1. Chiefly.(a* "hen the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations. O1r R1li(2 This Court is not a trier of facts. o/ &o(+r*&+ o/ &*rri*2%5 #2$ 90%+0%r or (o+ r%'po()%(+ i' %(+i+l%) +o 3or*l *() %4%3pl*r. the conclusions on this atter of the lo"er courts. • #C.* issues to resolve here.??? #N B'1'FE/ W'/ EICE//#CE 'NB 0NPRECEBEN%EB. WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ 'W'RB @8 P:>?. )*3*2%'5 *() #-$ 90%+0%r or (o+ JA i' %(+i+l%) +o i+' &o1(+%r&l*i3 /or )*3*2%'. Neither did the C' co it isapprehension of facts nor did it fail to consider relevant facts.=: ' ong the e!ceptions to this rule are. the issues are factual. JAL is guilty of breach of contract of carriage. in aking its findings. there being no sufficient sho"ing that the said courts co itted reversible error in reaching their conclusions. => We have repeatedly held that +0% /i()i(2' o/ /*&+ o/ +0% CA *r% /i(*l *() &o(&l1'i:% *() &*((o+ 6% r%:i%9%) o( *pp%*l +o +0% S1pr%3% Co1r+ pro:i)%) +0%. "hich are better e2uipped and have better opportunity to assess the evidence first9hand. %he R%C findings of facts "ere affir ed by the C'. and that of attorney6s fees.• '//01#NF ARGUENDO %H'% RE/P@NBEN% W'/ EN%#%)EB %@ 'N 'W'RB @8 B'1'FE/. sur ises or conAecturesD (b* "hen the inference ade is anifestly istaken. We thus sustain the coherent facts as established by the courts belo". including the testi ony of the "itnesses. and are bound by. *r% 6*'%) o( '16'+*(+i*l %:i)%(&%.#1$ 90%+0%r or (o+ JA i' 21il+.

. as a co on carrier. "ith a due regard for all the circu stances . 's provided in 'rticle $:>> of the Ne" Civil Code. We find untenable &')6s defense of Everification of respondent6s docu entsE in its breach of contract of carriage.. travel authority and personal articles already passed the rigid i igration and security routines. such "aiver ust be e!press.>7 's ad itted by &'). #n short. &') did not allo" respondent to fly. "as that &') personnel i puted that respondent "ould only use the trip to the 0nited /tates as a prete!t to stay and "ork in &apan. 'part fro the fact that respondent6s plane ticket.. &') Austifies its action by arguing that there "as Ea need to verify the authenticity of respondent6s travel docu ent.. boarding pass. ought to kno" the kind of valid travel docu ents respondent carried.%hat respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket fro &') and "as issued the corresponding boarding pass is uncontroverted. he "as allo"ed by &') to enter its airplane to fly to )os 'ngeles./. Considering that respondent "as forced to get out of the plane and left behind against his "ill. as found by the R%C and C'. /ince novation i plies a "aiver of the right the creditor had before the novation. >. that respondent had "illingly done a"ay "ith his right to fly on &uly +. =.E7$ %hus.>$ Concisely. 1oreover. via Narita.E' co on carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as hu an care and foresight can provide.+. #t infor ed respondent that there "as a need to first check the authenticity of his travel docu ents "ith the 0. 9i+0 i+' o6li2*+io( 1()%r +0% &o(+r*&+ o/ &*rri*2%. 0. >. he could not have freely consented to be rebooked the ne!t day.+. travel authority and personal articles "ere subAected to rigid i igration and security >? procedure. Ba age had already been done "hen respondent "as offered to fly the ne!t day on &uly .. #t further contended that respondent agreed to fly the ne!t day so that it could first verify his travel docu ent. $. JA +01' /*il%) +o &o3pl. &apan. "ithout clear proof. Ethe flight could not "ait for 1r./. using the ut ost diligence of very cautious persons.?.+. #t cannot be supposed. His plane ticket. 0% )i) (o+ *2r%% +o +0% *ll%2%) (o:*+io(. . /i angan because it "as ready to depart. boarding pass. the reason behind the bu ping off incident. $. California. He "as not allo"ed by &') to fly.E>+ #t alleged that no one fro its airport staff had encountered a parole visa before. >= #t aintained that it "as not guilty of breach of contract of carriage as respondent "as not able to travel to the 0nited /tates due to his o"n voluntary desistance. there "as novation.'. /aid offer did not cure &')6s default. E bassy. %he latter "as uncere oniously bu ped off despite his protestations and valid travel docu ents and not"ithstanding his contract of carriage "ith &'). 'fter passing through said i igration and security procedure. >> We cannot agree. >.E>: /ince &') definitely declared that the flight could not "ait for respondent. &') ade respondent get off the plane on his scheduled departure on &uly +. $. 7? &'). hence. Nevertheless. there "as a contract of carriage bet"een &') and respondent. it gave respondent no choice but to be left behind.

&') personnel su arily and insolently ordered respondent to dise bark "hile the latter "as already settled in his assigned seat. #t is contended that it did not act fraudulently or in bad faith to"ards respondent. #nattention to and lack of care for the interests of its passengers "ho are entitled to its ut ost consideration.77 (0nderscoring ours* Clearly. it ay not be held liable for oral da ages. His protestation of having been issued a 0. He "as ordered out of the plane under the alleged reason that the genuineness of his travel docu ents should be verified. in the presence of other passengers. all that is re2uired of plaintiff is to prove the e!istence of such contract and its non9perfor ance by the carrier through the latter6s failure to carry the passenger safely to his destination. He "as certainly e barrassed and hu iliated "hen. "ere ignored.($* in cases in "hich the ishap results in the death of a passenger. 's a general rule. JA i' li*6l% /or 3or*l )*3*2%' . a ount to bad faith "hich entitles the passenger to an a"ard of oral da ages. to "it- • ! ! ! he "as haughtily eAected by appellant. hence. as provided in 'rticle $:7=. 7. #t is fir ly settled that oral da ages are recoverable in suits predicated on breach of a contract of carriage "here it is proved that the carrier "as guilty of fraud or bad faith.#t bears repeating that the po"er to ad it or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act "hich cannot be interfered "ith even by &'). he "as co pelled to deplane on the grounds that his papers "ere fake.* of the Civil CodeD and (+* in the cases in "hich the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith. oral da ages are not recoverable in actions for da ages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the ite s enu erated under 'rticle ++$. 7+ #n an action for breach of contract of carriage. 's found by the R%C. in relation to 'rticle ++?7(. as in this case. "ithout the least courtesy every hu an being is entitled to.7= 's an e!ception. What the la" considers as bad faith "hich ay furnish the ground for an a"ard of oral da ages "ould be bad faith in securing the contract and in the e!ecution thereof. %hen. 7: . With reference to oral da ages. the appellant6s airline staff shouted at hi to stand up and arrogantly asked hi to produce his travel papers. Respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees plus legal interest. particularly as to their convenience. as provided in 'rticle +++?. %hese findings of facts "ere upheld by the C'. 7> T0% *&+' &o33i++%) 6. of the Civil Code. &') breached its contract of carriage "ith respondent in bad faith. Respondent has co plied "ith these t"in re2uisites. he "as ade to "ait for any hours at the office of appellant only to be told later that he has valid travel docu ents. Worse. &') alleged that they are not recoverable in actions e! contractu e!cept only "hen the breach is attended by fraud or bad faith. or any other kind of deceit./. as "ell as in the enforce ent of its ter s. JA *2*i('+ r%'po()%(+ *3o1(+' +o 6*) /*i+0. visa coupled "ith his plea to appellant to closely onitor his ove ents "hen the aircraft stops over in Narita. such da ages are recoverable.

With respect to attorney6s fees. National La)or Relations Commission.?? as oral da ages and P$??.7. inAurious language. Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier6s e ployees "ith kindness. elucidated thus• %here are t"o co only accepted concepts of attorney6s fees. &o(&%p+. *( *++or(%. reckless. i( * li+i2*+io(. oppressive and alevolent acts against respondent.?? as e!e plary da ages in respondent6s favor is. %hey ay be recovered as actual or co pensatory da ages "hen e!e plary da ages are a"arded and "henever the court dee s it Aust and e2uitable. #n its ordinary concept. ay be recovered in contractual obligations.JA i' *l'o li*6l% /or %4%3pl*r.:. Estrella. and i' p*. or alevolent anner. 0*:% *2r%%) +0*+ +0% *9*r) '0*ll p%r+*i( +o +0% l*9. to ta e their reckless instincts and to force the to take ade2uate care of hu an beings and their property. an attorney6s fee is the reasonable co pensation paid to a la"yer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. that of the highest possible degree of diligence. courtesy and due consideration and are entitled to be protected against personal isconduct.*6l% (o+ +o +0% l*9.%r 61+ +o +0% &li%(+. in Construction Develo ment Cor oration of the !hili ines v. the so9called ordinary and e!traordinary. 1(l%'' +0%. E!e plary da ages. :> . indignities and abuses fro such e ployees.:$ %he Court. /or )*3*2%' or)%r%) 6. )*3*2%' as its above9 entioned acts constitute "anton. "hich are a"arded by "ay of e!a ple or correction for the public good. in @ur vie".:= #t "as therefore erroneous for the C' to delete the a"ard of attorney6s fees on the ground that the record is devoid of evidence to sho" the cost of the services of respondent6s counsel. as in this case. fro co on carriers and in creating a presu ption of negligence against the . Neglect or alfeasance of the carrier6s e ployees could give ground for an action for da ages. #n re2uiring co pliance "ith the standard of e!traordinary diligence.:? %he assess ent of P>??.7' /%% i' *( i()%3(i+. • I( i+' %4+r*or)i(*r. %his also serves as an e!a ple to discourage the repetition of si ilar oppressive acts. E!e plary da ages are designed by our civil la" to per it the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its conse2uence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behaviour. in fact. such as those authori5ed in 'rticle ++?. if defendant acted in "anton.%r *' *))i+io(*l &o3p%('*+io( or *' p*r+ +0%r%o/. %he a ount is actually discretionary upon the Court so long as it passes the test of reasonableness. +0% lo'i(2 p*r+. +0% &o1r+ +o 6% p*i) 6..???. %he basis of this co pensation is the fact of his e ploy ent by and his agree ent "ith the client.???. respect. oppressive. a standard "hich is. 7. reasonable and realistic. %he basis of this is any of the cases provided by la" "here such a"ard can be ade. the la" seeks to co pel the to control their e ployees. %his a"ard is reasonably sufficient to inde nify hi for the hu iliation and e barrass ent he suffered. they ay be a"arded "hen defendant6s act or o ission has co pelled plaintiff to litigate "ith third persons or to incur e!penses to protect his interest.:+ citing "ra#ers Ro$al %an& Em lo$ees Union'(n#e en#ent v. fraudulent. Civil Code.

When an obligation. (nc. an interest on the a ount of da ages a"arded ay be i posed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 7J er annum. /ro3 +0% )*+% +0% .??. +??? "hen the R%C rendered its Audg ent.e. a loan or forbearance of oney. be on the a ount finally adAudged. *6o:%. +0%( *( %<1i:*l%(+ +o * /or6%*r*(&% o/ &r%)i+. to "it 9 • $. ho"ever. 2uasi9contracts. fro Audicial or e!traAudicial de and under and subAect to the provisions of 'rticle $$7. i. regardless of its source. (E phasis supplied and citations o itted* 'ccordingly. is breached.1)23%(+ o/ +0% &o1r+ *9*r)i(2 * '13 o/ 3o(%.???. "e held in Eastern *hi ing Lines. +0i' i(+%ri3 p%rio) 6%i(2 )%%3%) +o 6% 6.:. 6% )%%3%) +o 0*:% 6%%( r%*'o(*6l. attorney6s fees in the a ount of P+??. • . contracts. shall be adAudged on unli2uidated clai s or da ages e!cept "hen or until the de and can be established "ith reasonable certainty. v. in addition to the said total a ount of P. 1(+il i+' '*+i'/*&+io(. ..???. =0%( +0% .e. Court of A eals . • in this case. that "hen an obligation. la". +0% i(+%r%'+ '0*ll 6%2i( +o r1( o(l. delicts or 2uasi9delicts is breached. the interest rate shall be $+J until its satisfaction..1)23%(+ o/ +0% &o1r+ i' 3*)% #*+ 90i&0 +i3% +0% <1*(+i/i&*+io( o/ )*3*2%' 3*. Civil Code* but "hen such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the ti e the de and is ade. the contravenor can be held liable for pay ent of interest in the concept of actual and co pensatory da ages..??. v. When the obligation is breached. 'ccordingly. Court of A eals . subAect to the follo"ing rules. %he actual base for the co putation of legal interest shall. the legal interest is 7J and it shall be reckoned fro /epte ber +$. Estrella. (nc.???...?? earn legal interest pursuant to the Court6s ruling in Construction Develo ment Cor oration of the !hili ines v. 8urther ore. %he above liabilities of &') in the total a ount of P.:: to "it• Regarding the i position of legal interest at the rate of 7J fro the ti e of the filing of the co plaint. i. not constituting a loan or forbearance of oney. $$7.?? is reasonably odest. *'&%r+*i(%)$ . #n the absence of stipulation. "here the de and is established "ith reasonable certainty.. 8ro the ti e this Becision beco es final and e!ecutory. the interest shall begin to run fro the ti e the clai is ade Audicially or e!traAudicially ('rt. 90%+0%r +0% &*'% /*ll' 1()%r p*r*2r*p0 1 or p*r*2r*p0 2.??.e. in any case. 6%&o3%' /i(*l *() %4%&1+or. of the Civil Code. the interest due should be that "hich ay have been stipulated in "riting. No interest. i. Pursuant to the above ruling of the Court. +0% r*+% o/ l%2*l i(+%r%'+. Considering the factual backdrop of this case.:7 citing Eastern *hi ing Lines. and it consists in the pay ent of a su of oney. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest fro the ti e it is Audicially de anded. &') is liable to pay respondent legal interest. the rate of interest shall be $+J per annu to be co puted fro default. '0*ll 6% 12> p%r *((13 /ro3 '1&0 /i(*li+.

0*) 6%%( r*i'%) i( +0% pl%*)i(2'. %his is e!plained by the Court in %orjal v. ainly "ith the traveling public. for the la" could not have eant to i pose a penalty on the right to litigate. &')6s "itness "as able to testify on the sa e before the R%C. 'llegedly. +alang erhu. %he doctrine of fair co ent eans that "hile in general every discreditable i putation publicly ade is . 'ssu ing that respondent.+ 'lthough these additional da ages allegedly suffered by &') "ere not incorporated in its 'ns"er as they arose subse2uent to its filing.> to "it- on carrier. '0*ll 6% +r%*+%) i( *ll r%'p%&+' *' i/ +0%. ?#9$0%( i''1%' (o+ r*i'%) 6. Hence. %his public issue or concern is a legiti ate topic of a public co ent that ay be validly published.= /ince &') deals "ith the public. is a co pulsory counterclai for da ages and attorney6s fees arising fro the filing of the co plaint.? We reiterate case la" that i/ )*3*2%' r%'1l+ /ro3 * p*r+. . &')6s business is • %o reiterate. +0% pl%*)i(2' *r% +ri%) 9i+0 +0% %4pr%'' or i3pli%) &o('%(+ o/ +0% p*r+i%'. they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.. &') presented a "itness "ho testified that &') suffered further da$ong maaring i#ulot ang aggamit sa sariling &ara atan. its bu ping off of respondent "ithout a valid reason naturally dre" public attention and generated a public issue.1r. +0%. Well9settled is the rule that the co ence ent of an action does not er se ake the action "rongful and subAect the action to da ages. #t invites people to avail the selves of the co forts and advantages it offers. .81 *9/1l *&+' 2i:% ri'% +o (o i(. %he publications involved atters about "hich the public has the right to be infor ed because they relate to a public issue. %he constitutional guarantee of /r%%)o3 o/ +0% 'p%%&0 and of the press includes fair co entaries on atters of public interest.7' %4%r&i'% o/ * ri20+. i+ i' damnum absque injuria. caused the publication of his co plaint.. ho"ever. fair co entaries on atters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. %he counterclai of &') in its 'ns"er:.JAL is not entitled to its counterclaim for damages.. %here is no ention of any other counter clai s. Court of A eals. indeed. . #t "as filed by respondent precisely to clai his right to da ages against &'). respondent caused the publications of his subAect co plaint against &') in the ne"spaper for "hich &') suffered da ages. Buring the trial. &')6s counterclai &') is a co cannot be granted. he ay not be held liable for da ages for it. 's provided in /ection >. although these issues "ere not raised by the pleadings. %his co pulsory counterclai of &') arising fro the filing of the co plaint ay not be granted inas uch as the co plaint against it is obviously not alicious or unfounded.? Nevertheless.. Rule $? of the Rules of Court.

90%( +0% )i'&r%)i+*6l% i3p1+*+io( i' )ir%&+%) *2*i('+ * p16li& p%r'o( i( 0i' p16li& &*p*&i+. SO ORDERED. 's odified. 6% *&+io(*6l%. I( or)%r +0*+ '1&0 )i'&r%)i+*6l% i3p1+*+io( +o * p16li& o//i&i*l 3*.. .. i+ 31'+ %i+0%r 6% * /*l'% *ll%2*+io( o/ /*&+ or * &o33%(+ 6*'%) o( * /*l'% '1ppo'i+io(.???. if any. and candidates for office. public en. pursuant to the %orjal case. and includes atters of public concern. and every false i putation is dee ed alicious. 6% i(/%rr%) /ro3 +0% /*&+'. &') ay not clai da ages for the .?? as e!e plary da agesD and (. Considering that the published articles involve atters of public interest and that its e!pressed opinion is not alicious but based on established facts. %he appealed Becision of the Court of 'ppeals is A88IRMED =ITH MODI8ICATION.* P+??. i+ i' (o+ (%&%''*ril. *' lo(2 *' i+ 3i20+ r%*'o(*6l. %he total a ount adAudged shall earn legal interest at the rate of 7J per annu fro the date of Audg ent of the Regional %rial Court on /epte ber +$. %he privilege applies not only to public officials but e!tends to a great variety of subAects.?? as attorney6s fees. RUAEN T. 8ro the ti e this Becision beco es final and e!ecutory.?? as oral da agesD (+* P$??.($* P>??. *&+io(*6l%. +0%( i+ i' i33*+%ri*l +0*+ +0% opi(io( 0*pp%(' +o 6% 3i'+*@%(. RE!ES 'ssociate &ustice .: Hence.. there ust be an *&+1*l 3*li&% in order that a discreditable i putation to a public person in his public capacity or to a public official ay be actionable.dee ed false. nevertheless. =HERE8ORE. the i putations against &') are not actionable. 6*'%) o( %'+*6li'0%) /*&+'. the rule on privileged co entaries on atters of public interest applies to it.7 (Citations o itted and underscoring ours* Even though &') is not a public official. +??? until the finality of this Becision. *r% /*l'% or (o+. the libelous state ents ust be sho"n to have been "ritten or published "ith the kno"ledge that they are /*l'% or i( r%&@l%'' )i'r%2*r) o/ 90%+0%r +0%. %herefore. shall earn legal interest at the rate of $+J per annu until its satisfaction.???.. %o be considered alicious.???. the unpaid a ount. petitioner &apan 'irlines is ordered to pay respondent &esus /i angan the follo"ing. because every an is presu ed innocent until his guilt is Audicially proved. the petition is DENIED. I/ +0% &o33%(+ i' *( %4pr%''io( o/ opi(io(.