Victorino Savellano, Virginia B. Savellano and Deogracias B.

Savellano,
petitoners, vs Northwest Airlines, respondent.
GR No. 151783 July 8, 2003

FACTS:
On October 27, 1991 the petitioners departed from San Francisco, USA on board
Northwest Airlines Flight 27, Business Class, bound for Manila, Philippines
using a roundtrip tickets which were issued at respondents Manila ticketing
office. After being airborne, the pilot made an emergency landing in Seattle after
announcing that a fire had started in one of the plane engines. The passengers
were brought to a hotel. At around midnight they were awakened by a phone call
from Northwest Airlines personnel that they would be leaving early the next day
and they would be taking the Seattle-Tokyo-Manila route. Upon arrival at the
airport, they were again advised that they will take another route which is the
Seattle-Los Angeles-Seoul-Manila. Upon arrival of the Savellanos in Manila, they
were teased for taking a longer and tiresome route. Also, their luggage had been
ransacked and valuable items inside have gone missing. The Savellanos
demanded damages on the ground that they suffered inconvenience,
embarrassment and humiliation for taking a longer route. The RTC ruled in
favor of the Petitioners however, on appeal by the respondent, the decision was
reversed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not the bump off was a breach of air carriage contract.
2. Whether or not the Savellanos was entitled to actual, moral, and
exemplary damages.

RULING:

The petition is partly meritorious.

1. Yes. There is nothing in the condition in the contract of carriage authorizing

Northwest Airlines to decide unilaterally after the distressed flight landed in
Seattle, what other stopping places petitioners should take and when they
should fly. Substituting aircrafts or carriers without notice is entirely different
from changing stopping places or connecting cities without notice. More
importantly, the clause only allows the change by showing necessity and the
airline company has not been able to demonstrate that there was necessity to
change flight itinerary.
2. No moral damages can be adjudged against the airline company since the
evidence show that the staff of the airline company was motivated to have the
plaintiffs reach their final destination by any means, and there is no showing that
there was motivation for profit, malice or self-interest.

Lopez, Zulueta and Ortigas rulings are not applicable as alleged by the Plaintiffs
in their claim. In Lopez, despite sufficient time--- one month--- to inform the
passengers of what happened to the booking, the airline agent intentionally
withheld that information from them. In Zulueta, the passenger was deliberately
off-loaded after being gravely insulted during an altercation. And in Ortigas, the
passengers was intentionally downgraded in favor of a European. All are
inapplicable in this case.