Cathay Pacific v.

Vasquez, 399 SCRA 207 (2003

Facts: This case involves an involuntary upgrading of an airline

passenger accommodation from one class to more superior one at no
extra cost. Cathay Pacific is a common carrier that transports goods
and passengers by Air. Among their many routes it services is Manila-
Hongkong-Manila course. The spouses Vasques were on their way to
Manila together with their maid and two companions. While boarding
Cathay Pacific, they presented their boarding passes to a ground
attendant named Clara Lai Han Chiu. Upon presentation, Ms. Chiu said
to the Dr. Vasquez that their accommodations were upgraded to First
Class from Business Class. However, they refused the upgrade, saying
that it would not look nice for them as hosts to Travel in Fist Class and
their guests in the Business Class. Ms. Chiu then consulted his her
supervisors regarding the matter, but to no avail, they insisted to
transfer the Vasquezes to the First Class and said that they would not
be allowed to take the flight if they do not proceed to the First Class.

Upon their return in Manila, the Vasquezes, in a letter addressed to

Cathays Country Manager, that they be indemnified in the amount of
1million pesos for the humiliation and embarrassment caused by its
employees. They also demanded for a written apology from the
management of Cathay. With no response, from Catay, the Vasquezes
instituted before the RTC Makati an action for damages against Cathay.
The trial court decided in favor of the spouses. The Court of Appeals
however, delted the exemplary damages and reduced the awards of
moral and nominal damages and attorneys fees.

Issue: WON Cathay breached its contract of carrage with the

Vasquezes when it ugraded their seat accommodation.

Held: YES. The Vazquezes never denied that they were members of
Cathays Marco Polo Club. They knew that as members of the Club,
they had priority for upgrading of their seat accommodation at no
extra cost when an opportunity arises. But, just like other privileges,
such priority could be waived. The Vazquezes should have been
consulted first whether they wanted to avail themselves of the
privilege or would consent to a change of seat accommodation before
their seat assignments were given to other passengers. Normally, one
would appreciate and accept an upgrading, for it would mean a better
accommodation. But, whatever their reason was and however odd it
might be, the Vazquezes had every right to decline the upgrade and
insist on the Business Class accommodation they had booked for and
which was designated in their boarding passes. They clearly waived
their priority or preference when they asked that other passengers be
given the upgrade. It should not have been imposed on them over their
vehement objection. By insisting on the upgrade, Cathay breached its
contract of carriage with the Vazquezes.