You are on page 1of 14

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 170141. April 22, 2008.]

AIRLINES petitioner, vs . JESUS SIMANGAN,
JAPAN AIRLINES, SIMANGAN respondent.

DECISION

R.T. J :
REYES, R.T., p

WHEN an airline issues a ticket to a passenger con rmed on a particular ight on
a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to expect
that he would y on that ight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens
itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. 1 IDCScA

The power to admit or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act which
cannot be interfered with even by Japan Airlines (JAL). 2
In this petition for review on certiorari, 3 petitioner JAL appeals the: (1) Decision 4
dated May 31, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) ordering it to pay respondent Jesus
Simangan moral and exemplary damages; and (2) Resolution 5 of the same court dated
September 28, 2005 denying JAL's motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
In 1991, respondent Jesus Simangan decided to donate a kidney to his ailing
cousin, Loreto Simangan, in UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Upon request of UCLA, respondent undertook a series of laboratory tests at the
National Kidney Institute in Quezon City to verify whether his blood and tissue type are
compatible with Loreto's. 6 Fortunately, said tests proved that respondent's blood and
tissue type were well-matched with Loreto's. 7
Respondent needed to go to the United States to complete his preliminary work-
up and donation surgery. Hence, to facilitate respondent's travel to the United States,
UCLA wrote a letter to the American Consulate in Manila to arrange for his visa. In due
time, respondent was issued an emergency U.S. visa by the American Embassy in
Manila. 8 ISTECA

Having obtained an emergency U.S. visa, respondent purchased a round trip
plane ticket from petitioner JAL for US$1,485.00 and was issued the corresponding
boarding pass. 9 He was scheduled to a particular ight bound for Los Angeles,
California, U.S.A. via Narita, Japan. 1 0
On July 29, 1992, the date of his ight, respondent went to Ninoy Aquino
International Airport in the company of several relatives and friends. 1 1 He was allowed
to check-in at JAL's counter. 1 2 His plane ticket, boarding pass, travel authority and
personal articles were subjected to rigid immigration and security routines. 1 3 After
passing through said immigration and security procedures, respondent was allowed by
JAL to enter its airplane. 1 4
While inside the airplane, JAL's airline crew suspected respondent of carrying a
falsi ed travel document and imputed that he would only use the trip to the United
States as a pretext to stay and work in Japan. 1 5 The stewardess asked respondent to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

Alejo rendered its decision in favor of respondent (plaintiff). Shortly after.5 million as exemplary damages and P500. 2 4 JAL denied the material allegations of the complaint. CacTIE Respondent went to JAL's ground o ce and waited there for three hours. indeed. 2000.S. among others.000. that respondent was advised to take the ight the following day. he was informed that his travel documents were. 2 2 Displeased by the turn of events. 2 9 The RTC explained: In summarily and insolently ordering the plaintiff to disembark while the latter was already settled in his assigned seat. visa. exemplary damages and attorney's fees.00 as exemplary damages and the amount of P250. and that when the plaintiff was nally not allowed to take the ight. July 30. 1 8 In a nutshell. respondent led an action for damages against JAL with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Valenzuela City. Meanwhile.000. he pleaded with JAL to closely monitor his movements when the aircraft stops over in Narita. He claimed he was not able to donate his kidney to Loreto. 1 6 Respondent protested. It argued. 2 7 IaHCAD JAL also lodged a counterclaim anchored on respondent's alleged wrongful institution of the complaint. He was then constrained to go out of the plane. The defendant is engaged in transporting passengers by plane from country to country and is therefore conversant with the travel documents. 1992. the amount of P500. he suffered more wounded feelings and social humiliation for which the plaintiff was asking to be awarded moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. that its failure to allow respondent to y on his scheduled departure was due to "a need for his travel documents to be authenticated by the United States Embassy" 2 5 because no one from JAL's airport staff had encountered a parole visa before. judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P1. show his travel documents. Just to allow him to board the plane. 4195-V-93. and that he suffered terrible embarrassment and mental anguish. the stewardess along with a Japanese and a Filipino haughtily ordered him to stand up and leave the plane. respondent was bumped off the flight.com . 1 7 His pleas were ignored. in order. 2 6 It posited that the authentication required additional time. 2 1 Subsequently. disposing as follows: WHEREFORE. 2 0 Respondent was refunded the cost of his plane ticket less the sum of US$500. that when the plaintiff was ordered out of the plane under the pretext that the genuineness of his travel documents would be veri ed it had caused him embarrassment and besmirched reputation. Inc. 1992.00 as moral damages. The reason given by the defendant that what prompted them to investigate the genuineness of the travel documents of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was not then carrying a regular visa but just a letter does not appear satisfactory. 1 9 Afterwards. JAL alleged that respondent agreed to be rebooked on July 30. the plane took off and he was left behind. It prayed for litigation expenses. 2 3 He prayed that he be awarded P3 million as moral damages. respondent's U. © 2017 cdasiaonline. the RTC presided by Judge Floro P.000. explaining that he was issued a U.S.00 as attorney's fees.00 as attorney's fees. to the prejudice of the plaintiff CD Technologies Asia. the defendant violated the contract of carriage. visa was cancelled. docketed as Civil Case No. P1. The defendant should not be allowed to pretend. 2 8 On September 21.000.00 which was deducted by JAL. plus the cost of suit.000.

i.com ." 3 9 The CA ratiocinated: While the protection of passengers must take precedence over convenience. its belated theory of novation. without the least courtesy every human being is entitled to. 1992 was extinguished by novation when appellant and appellant agreed that appellee will instead take appellant's ight to Narita on the following day. The damage had been done. 1992. ECDHIc In fact. July 30. It is inappropriate at bar. DHEACI The foregoing act of the defendant in ordering the plaintiff to deplane while already settled in his assigned seat clearly demonstrated that the defendant breached its contract of carriage with the plaintiff as passenger in bad faith and as such the plaintiff is entitled to moral and exemplary damages as well as to an award of attorney's fees. hence.000. 3 4 The CA elucidated that since JAL issued to respondent a round trip plane ticket for a lawful consideration. Inc. deserves little attention. breach of the contract of carriage creates against the carrier a presumption of liability. That appellee possessed bogus travel documents and that he might stay illegally in Japan are allegations without substantiation. the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. as follows: Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500.e. Besides." 3 8 and that "he was compelled to deplane on the grounds that his papers were fake. and placing on the carrier the burden to prove that it was due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. Appellant JAPAN AIR LINES is ordered to pay appellee JESUS SIMANGAN the reduced sums. The fallo of the CA decision reads: TcEaDS WHEREFORE." 3 5 It found that respondent was "haughtily ejected" 3 6 by JAL and that "he was certainly embarrassed and humiliated" 3 7 when. 3 0 Disagreeing with the RTC judgment. © 2017 cdasiaonline. not to know that the travel documents of the plaintiff are valid documents to allow him entry in the United States. by a simple proof of injury. v. the implementation of security measures must be attended by basic courtesies. in the presence of other passengers. inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be accommodated in the class contracted CD Technologies Asia. and Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250.00) as exemplary damages.000. 2005.00) as moral damages. not liable for damages. Lufthansa German Airlines.. Jr. 4 1 the CA declared that "(i)n contracts of common carriage. that appellant's original obligation to carry appellee to Narita and Los Angeles on July 29. JAL appealed to the CA contending that it is not guilty of breach of contract of carriage. Also. relieving the injured passenger of the duty to establish the fault of the carrier or of his employees. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modi cation in that it lowered the amount of moral and exemplary damages and deleted the award of attorney's fees. JAL's airline staff "shouted at him to stand up and arrogantly asked him to produce his travel papers. Questions not taken up during the trial cannot be raised for the rst time on appeal. The award of attorney's fees is hereby DELETED. appellant's attempt to rebook appellee the following day was too late and did not relieve it from liability. 3 1 It posited that it is the one entitled to recover on its counterclaim. "there arose a perfected contract between them. 4 0 (Underscoring ours and citations were omitted) Citing Ortigas. 3 2 CA Ruling In a Decision 3 3 dated May 31.

00 is just and fair. II. Hence.00 as exemplary damages needs to be reduced to a reasonable level. cEaTHD Moreover.000. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT JAL WAS GUILTY OF BREACH. Inc. CONSIDERING THAT: DCaEAS A. 4 3 (Citations were omitted) When JAL's motion for reconsideration was denied.MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED IN BREACH OF CONTRACT CASES ONLY WHEN THE BREACH IS ATTENDED BY FRAUD OR BAD FAITH. the CA modified the damages awarded by the RTC. by reason of the defendant's culpable action." 4 2 SECIcT Nevertheless. No other proof of appellee's social standing. Appellee was de nitely compelled to litigate in protecting his rights and in seeking relief from appellant's misdeeds. however.000. the sum of 500. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CONSIDERING CD Technologies Asia.00 is adequate under the circumstances. Being discretionary on the court. The award of P250.00 as attorney's fees lacks factual basis. To Us. the grant of P500. the sum of P250. The award of exemplary damages is designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the offender. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES. Yet. Here. it resorted to the petition at bar. Issues JAL poses the following issues — I. should not be palpably and scandalously excessive.THE LAW DISTINGUISHES A CONTRACTUAL BREACH EFFECTED IN GOOD FAITH FROM ONE ATTENDED BY BAD FAITH. It explained: Fundamental in the law on damages is that one injured by a breach of a contract.000. moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. the record is devoid of evidence to show the cost of the services of his counsel and/or the actual expenses incurred in prosecuting his action. profession.000.000. for amounts to bad faith or fraud which entitles the passengers to the award of moral damages in accordance with Article 2220 of the Civil Code. For. JAL DID NOT ACT FRAUDULENTLY OR IN BAD FAITH AS TO ENTITLE RESPONDENT TO MORAL DAMAGES. B. diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone. or by a wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fair and just compensation commensurate to the loss sustained as consequence of the defendant's act.JAL WAS NOT GUILTY OF BREACH OF CONTRACT. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means. the trial court's award of P1.com . C.000.00 as moral damages appears to be overblown. the amount. nancial capabilities was presented except that he was single and a businessman. © 2017 cdasiaonline.

EcHaAC We are not a trier of facts. The CA also gave its nod to the reasoning of the RTC except as to the awards of damages. Our Ruling This Court is not a trier of facts. (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken.ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT JAL WAS GUILTY OF BREACH. which are better equipped and have better opportunity to assess the evidence rst-hand. (f) when the CA. Inc.com . 4 8 The said exceptions. III. The RTC ndings of facts were a rmed by the CA. which are being invoked by JAL. in making its findings. Likewise. Neither did the CA commit misapprehension of facts nor did it fail to consider relevant facts. (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. including the testimony of the witnesses. Chie y. and (3) whether or not JAL is entitled to its counterclaim for damages. We generally rely upon. surmises or conjectures. B. aIcDCT IV. © 2017 cdasiaonline. RECKLESS. THAT: ISCDEA A.000 IN DAMAGES WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED. (c) where there is grave abuse of discretion. (2) whether or not respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages. are not found here. absurd or impossible. FRAUDULENT. there was no grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts or mistaken and absurd inferences. to reverse their ndings. the conclusions on this matter of the lower courts. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT CONDUCT. JAL DID NOT ACT IN A WANTON FRAUDULENT. 4 4 (Underscoring Ours) Basically. which were reduced. and that of attorney's fees. (e) when the findings of facts are conflicting. There is no indication that the ndings of the CA are contrary to the evidence on record or that vital testimonies of JAL's witnesses were disregarded. 4 7 Among the exceptions to this rule are: (a) when the conclusion is a nding grounded entirely on speculations. the issues are factual. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES. 4 5 We have repeatedly held that the ndings of fact of the CA are nal and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court provided they are based on substantial evidence. and are bound by. 4 6 We have no jurisdiction. went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. as a rule. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING FOR JAL ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT MANNER AS TO ENTITLE RESPONDENT TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. RECKLESS.EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE UNLESS THE CARRIER IS GUILTY OF WANTON. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS AWARD OF P750. there are three (3) issues to resolve here: (1) whether or not JAL is guilty of breach of contract of carriage. CTHDcE CD Technologies Asia. which was deleted.

S. It informed respondent that there was a need to rst check the authenticity of his travel documents with the U. hence. Simangan because it was ready to depart. California. "the ight could not wait for Mr. he did not agree to the alleged novation. Since novation implies a waiver of the right the creditor had before the novation. Said offer did not cure JAL's default. there was novation. Moreover. 5 4 It maintained that it was not guilty of breach of contract of carriage as respondent was not able to travel to the United States due to his own voluntary desistance. 5 0 After passing through said immigration and security procedure." 5 2 It alleged that no one from its airport staff had encountered a parole visa before. IacHAE JAL justi es its action by arguing that there was "a need to verify the authenticity of respondent's travel document. with a due regard for all the circumstances" . 1992. 5 9 Apart from the fact that respondent's plane ticket. The latter was unceremoniously bumped off despite his protestations and valid travel documents and notwithstanding his contract of carriage with JAL. there was a contract of carriage between JAL and respondent. Inc. that respondent had willingly done away with his right to fly on July 29. CIAHaT Considering that respondent was forced to get out of the plane and left behind against his will. via Narita. U. ought to know the kind of valid travel documents respondent carried. 4 9 His plane ticket. the reason behind the bumping off incident. was that JAL personnel imputed that respondent would only use the trip to the United States as a pretext to stay and work in Japan. using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. 6 0 JAL. He was not allowed by JAL to y. That respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket from JAL and was issued the corresponding boarding pass is uncontroverted. Nevertheless. Embassy.S. travel authority and personal articles already passed the rigid immigration and security routines. 5 6 As admitted by JAL. We nd untenable JAL's defense of "veri cation of respondent's documents" in its breach of contract of carriage. 5 1 Concisely.A.com . Damage had already been done when respondent was offered to fly the next day on July 30. In short. boarding pass. DEAaIS It bears repeating that the power to admit or not an alien into the country is a CD Technologies Asia. © 2017 cdasiaonline. there being no su cient showing that the said courts committed reversible error in reaching their conclusions. JAL thus failed to comply with its obligation under the contract of carriage. such waiver must be express. We thus sustain the coherent facts as established by the courts below. As provided in Article 1755 of the New Civil Code: "A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. as a common carrier. 6 1 Thus. it gave respondent no choice but to be left behind. boarding pass. 5 3 It further contended that respondent agreed to y the next day so that it could rst verify his travel document. without clear proof. JAL made respondent get off the plane on his scheduled departure on July 29. he could not have freely consented to be rebooked the next day. 5 8 It cannot be supposed. 5 5 We cannot agree. JAL did not allow respondent to y. 1992." 5 7 Since JAL de nitely declared that the ight could not wait for respondent. 1992. he was allowed by JAL to enter its airplane to y to Los Angeles. as found by the RTC and CA. JAL is guilty of breach of contract of carriage. Japan. travel authority and personal articles were subjected to rigid immigration and security procedure.

Then. JAL is liable for moral damages. may be recovered in contractual obligations. without the least courtesy every human being is entitled to. particularly as to their convenience. Exemplary damages. which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good. he was made to wait for many hours at the o ce of appellant only to be told later that he has valid travel documents. oppressive and malevolent acts against respondent. TIaDHE These findings of facts were upheld by the CA. Inattention to and lack of care for the interests of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration. Inc. as in this case. the appellant's airline staff shouted at him to stand up and arrogantly asked him to produce his travel papers. With reference to moral damages. JAL personnel summarily and insolently ordered respondent to disembark while the latter was already settled in his assigned seat. in the presence of other passengers. fraudulent. He was certainly embarrassed and humiliated when. He was ordered out of the plane under the alleged reason that the genuineness of his travel documents should be verified. 6 4 As an exception. were ignored. it may not be held liable for moral damages. he was compelled to deplane on the grounds that his papers were fake. What the law considers as bad faith which may furnish the ground for an award of moral damages would be bad faith in securing the contract and in the execution thereof. Worse. in relation to Article 2206 (3) of the Civil Code. 6 5 The acts committed by JAL against respondent amounts to bad faith. sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL. as provided in Article 1764. CITaSA As a general rule. visa coupled with his plea to appellant to closely monitor his movements when the aircraft stops over in Narita.S. 6 2 In an action for breach of contract of carriage. 6 3 Respondent has complied with these twin requisites. moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code. . or any other kind of deceit. Respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees plus legal interest. and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith. or malevolent manner. as provided in Article 2220. It is contended that it did not act fraudulently or in bad faith towards respondent. It is rmly settled that moral damages are recoverable in suits predicated on breach of a contract of carriage where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith. he was haughtily ejected by appellant. JAL alleged that they are not recoverable in actions ex contractu except only when the breach is attended by fraud or bad faith. JAL breached its contract of carriage with respondent in bad faith. hence. to wit: . oppressive. As found by the RTC. all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of such contract and its non-performance by the carrier through the latter's failure to carry the passenger safely to his destination. such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger. 6 7 SACHcD JAL is also liable for exemplary damages as its above-mentioned acts constitute wanton. . © 2017 cdasiaonline. reckless. as in this case. as well as in the enforcement of its terms. His protestation of having been issued a U.com . if defendant acted in wanton. amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an award of moral damages. 6 6 (Underscoring ours) Clearly. 6 8 CD Technologies Asia.

© 2017 cdasiaonline. The above liabilities of JAL in the total amount of P800. Inc. 7 1 The Court. an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. that of the highest possible degree of diligence. National Labor Relations Commission.000. DAHSaT In its extraordinary concept. in fact. a standard which is. Court of Appeals.00 earn legal interest pursuant to the Court's ruling in Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines v. 7 5 as in this case. v. They may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages when exemplary damages are awarded and whenever the court deems it just and equitable. In requiring compliance with the standard of extraordinary diligence. Considering the factual backdrop of this case. The amount is actually discretionary upon the Court so long as it passes the test of reasonableness. in Our view. they may be awarded when defendant's act or omission has compelled plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. indignities and abuses from such employees. This award is reasonably su cient to indemnify him for the humiliation and embarrassment he suffered. to tame their reckless instincts and to force them to take adequate care of human beings and their property. With respect to attorney's fees. an attorney's fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation . attorney's fees in the amount of P200. unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client. 7 3 elucidated thus: There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees. reasonable and realistic. injurious language.000. Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness. Civil Code. the so- called ordinary and extraordinary. in Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines v. such as those authorized in Article 2208. 7 2 citing Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. 7 4 It was therefore erroneous for the CA to delete the award of attorney's fees on the ground that the record is devoid of evidence to show the cost of the services of respondent's counsel. Estrella. courtesy and due consideration and are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct.com . Estrella. 7 7 to wit: aEDCSI Regarding the imposition of legal interest at the rate of 6% from the time CD Technologies Asia. This also serves as an example to discourage the repetition of similar oppressive acts.000. Inc. 6 9 Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees could give ground for an action for damages. 7 6 citing Eastern Shipping Lines.000.00 as exemplary damages in respondent's favor is. The basis of this is any of the cases provided by law where such award can be made. and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client. Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behaviour. the law seeks to compel them to control their employees. In its ordinary concept. from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them. 7 0 DIETcH The assessment of P500. respect.00 as moral damages and P100.00 is reasonably modest.

Well-settled is the rule that the commencement of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the action to damages. the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art.. i.When When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes nal and executory. Pursuant to the above ruling of the Court. whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2. Inc. JAL is liable to pay respondent legal interest. JAL is not entitled to its counterclaim for damages.. delicts or quasi-delicts is breached. the rate of legal interest.When the obligation is breached. © 2017 cdasiaonline. however.000. is breached.com .00. above. not constituting a loan or forbearance of money. Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made. be on the amount finally adjudged. It was led by respondent precisely to claim his right to damages against JAL. From the time this Decision becomes nal and executory. No interest.When an obligation. in any case.e. law. the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. a loan or forbearance of money. where the demand is established with reasonable certainty. contracts. regardless of its source. In the absence of stipulation. the interest rate shall be 12% until its satisfaction. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. in addition to the said total amount of P800. 7 8 (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted) HDCTAc Accordingly.e. that when an obligation. 2000 when the RTC rendered its judgment. the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default. Inc..e. the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quanti cation of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained) . The counterclaim of JAL in its Answer 7 9 is a compulsory counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees arising from the ling of the complaint. Furthermore. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall. shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. 1169. and it consists in the payment of a sum of money. 8 0 ITECSH CD Technologies Asia. v. i. 3. to wit — 1. for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. Court of Appeals. an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. of the ling of the complaint. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. subject to the following rules. This compulsory counterclaim of JAL arising from the ling of the complaint may not be granted inasmuch as the complaint against it is obviously not malicious or unfounded. There is no mention of any other counter claims. the legal interest is 6% and it shall be reckoned from September 21. quasi-contracts. shall be 12% per annum from such nality until its satisfaction. i. this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Accordingly. we held in Eastern Shipping Lines. DaAETS 2. the contravenor can be held liable for payment of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages.

If the comment is an expression of opinion. nevertheless. it is damnum absque injuria. We reiterate case law that if damages result from a party's exercise of a right. indeed. To be considered malicious. however. JAL is a common carrier. public men. JAL presented a witness who testified that JAL suffered further damages. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of the speech and of the press includes fair commentaries on matters of public interest. "(w)hen issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties. the libelous statements must be shown to have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless CD Technologies Asia. It invites people to avail themselves of the comforts and advantages it offers. and every false imputation is deemed malicious." ECSHID Nevertheless. The publications involved matters about which the public has the right to be informed because they relate to a public issue. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false. 8 2 Although these additional damages allegedly suffered by JAL were not incorporated in its Answer as they arose subsequent to its ling. its bumping off of respondent without a valid reason naturally drew public attention and generated a public issue. 8 6 (Citations omitted and underscoring ours) Even though JAL is not a public o cial. and candidates for office. when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity. it is not necessarily actionable. they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. 8 5 to wit: SHECcT To reiterate. JAL's counterclaim cannot be granted. Allegedly. Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline. the rule on privileged commentaries on matters of public interest applies to it. and includes matters of public concern. JAL's business is mainly with the traveling public. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public o cial may be actionable. Court of Appeals. there must be an actual malice in order that a discreditable imputation to a public person in his public capacity or to a public o cial may be actionable. he may not be held liable for damages for it. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. 8 4 Since JAL deals with the public. then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken. karapatan During the trial. As provided in Section 5. This public issue or concern is a legitimate topic of a public comment that may be validly published. 8 7 aAcDSC Hence. JAL's witness was able to testify on the same before the RTC. it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. This is explained by the Court in Borjal v. although these issues were not raised by the pleadings. fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. caused the publication of his complaint. Walang perhuwisyong maaring idulot ang paggamit sa sariling karapatan.com . 8 3 Hence. because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved. respondent caused the publications of his subject complaint against JAL in the newspaper for which JAL suffered damages. based on established facts. 8 1 Lawful acts give rise to no injury. pursuant to the Borjal case. Assuming that respondent. The privilege applies not only to public o cials but extends to a great variety of subjects.

161730. the unpaid amount.Rollo. Del Castillo. 6. Valdez. Therefore.000. citing Alitalia Airways v. De Leon. Court of Appeals.Id. G. at 127. 770.Id.00 as moral damages.R. March 27. 2005. WHEREFORE. 4. The appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.000. SECATH CD Technologies Asia. No.Id. Jr. Austria-Martinez. 3. 2000 until the nality of this Decision. JJ. Inc. pp.Id. G. 2000. 5. 12. Chico-Nazario and Nachura. 123560. at 59.Id. 58-65. at 62. 187 SCRA 763. SO ORDERED.Id.. From the time this Decision becomes nal and executory.000. 13.Id. The petition contains a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Inc. 17. July 24. JAL may not claim damages for them..R. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. with Associate Justices Salvador J.Japan Airlines v. No. As modi ed. 1990.Id. 449 SCRA 544. shall earn legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum until its satisfaction. concurring.R. 328 SCRA 717. 11. concur. 735. G. 15. at 126-127. (now deceased) and Mariano C. (2) P100. Footnotes 1. Asuncion. ISCHET The total amount adjudged shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment of the Regional Trial Court on September 21.00 as exemplary damages. 16.00 as attorney's fees. petitioner Japan Airlines is ordered to pay respondent Jesus Simangan the following: (1) P500. and (3) P200.Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. TASCEc 2. at 59. 8 8 Considering that the published articles involve matters of public interest and that its expressed opinion is not malicious but based on established facts. 128. 10. © 2017 cdasiaonline. 128.Id. disregard of whether they are false or not. January 28.Id. the petition is DENIED. Ynares-Santiago. the imputations against JAL are not actionable.Yu Eng Cho v. 7. 8.Id. Pan American World Airways. if any. 548. at 66-67. 9.com .Id. at 62.Id. 77011. No. 14. at 59.

G.Id.Id. at 85.G. DaTHAc 46. 20. Court of Appeals. 25. citing Tongoy v. No. at 59. 41. 1979. Ltd. 35. L-78015.Id. 40. June 28.com . December 11. L-45645. L-55864.Id. at 86-87. L-28773.Id. March CD Technologies Asia. 39.Malaysian Airline System v. July 30. at 60. 43. No. 323. June 30. 45. citing Alsua-Betts v.Id.R. at 60.R. 1983.Id. Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. at 128-129. 1975. L-46430-31. 31. at 62. 30. 127. at 65.Id. 18.Id. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. 44. IHcTDA 27. 1987.Korean Airlines Co.R.Id.Id. 64 SCRA 610.Rollo. No. L-61418. 1987. G.Id.Id.. at 62. 38.Id. at 23-24. 213.Id.R..Id. 33. 127. at 64. at 63. v. 19. 156 SCRA 321. 22. aDHCAE 37. p. No. 36. 92 SCRA 332.Id.Id. 23.Id.Id.Id. 123 SCRA 99. 63. 24. G. 28. 47. September 24.Id.Id. 21. 154 SCRA 211. 129. 26.Id.Id. Inc. 29. © 2017 cdasiaonline. 32. 127-128. Nos. G.Id. G.R. No. at 58-65.R. Olango v. Court of Appeals. at 61. 34. 42.

56. No. 54. May 17. 2006. 53. pp. G. 1997.Id. 147791. 85. 43. No. 444 SCRA 370. G. 84458. 43 SCRA 397. 105 Phil.Id. No. Court of Appeals. 128. 19 SCRA 289. © 2017 cdasiaonline. 73835. 59. Ltd. Miranda.. G. p. 417 SCRA 292.R. 57. 1989.R. 58.M. Court of Appeals.Emphasis ours. 267 (1959). G. No. at 323-324. 60. at 62. v. December 14.R.G.R. citing Flores v. L-28589. 302.Singson v.Id.R. at 25. 1989. 68. Court of Appeals. No.Malaysian Airline System v. 128. G. 2004. No. 165. November 6.R. 1972. G. November 18. 1967. p. 67. No.R. citing Babst v. 99398. 62. Court of Appeals. 28.R. 121 SCRA 338. 122039. Aboitiz v. 128. China Airlines. 257 SCRA 33. at 85. v. 171 SCRA 620. 70. Inc. No. 59.Id.R. 61. 2000. 1992 ed. 501 SCRA 228. Gammad. at 59. supra note 2. 1. 50. at 24. 49. September 8. 13 (1997). supra note 45. 119641. 88052. Llamas. 159636.Id. February 9.Id. May 31. 71. G. 27.Calalas v. ACcHIa 65. 346 Phil.Rollo. 72. 282 SCRA 149. 2001. 299. 2003.R.Philippine Airlines v. 1982. 105. Esguerra.Japan Airlines v. pp..Id. 1989. 48. G. L-22533.R. Inc. 169 SCRA 226. 51. Court of Appeals..R.R. March 31.. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.Id. 180 SCRA 83.Rollo. citing Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines.Rollo. Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines.See note 63.Garcia v. at 25. 365. 64. 1983. Vol. G. No. 117 SCRA 741. No. February 29. 350 SCRA 341. Asuncion. G. No. January 26. December 8. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. L-31420. 55. at 62. Intermediate Appellate Court. Pan-Am Airways. G. Court of Appeals.Id.com . AaDSTH 59.Id. V. No. No. G. citing Yobido v.Victory Liner v.Mecenas v. Court of Appeals. 154127. IaAScD 52. 332 SCRA 356. CD Technologies Asia. citing Zulueta v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. 66. 243-244.R. November 25. G. 1996. A. at 27. 179 SCRA 95. No. 62. 119995. citing Ramos v. 82068. 63. EATcHD 69. October 23. 1989.Tolentino. January 17.

at 60. pp. March 14. Court of Appeals. July 8.R. G. Court of Appeals. at 244-245. 87. Court of Appeals.Supra note 72. 107566.G. 2208.com . EHIcaT 82. No. at 23. 234 SCRA 78. 128. 2004.Borjal v. No. No. 127957. 269 SCRA 733. 435. Court of Appeals. National Labor Relations Commission.G. August 31. 86-87. Court of Appeals. G. 60. July 12. G. 76. STHAID 75. 126466.Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v.R. No.R. © 2017 cdasiaonline. No. supra note 85. at 28-29. Art. id. 1997. No. 301 SCRA 572. February 21..Baguio Midland Courier v.R. Inc. 77.Vital-Gozon v. 78. at 740. 73. 352 SCRA 428. 83. aCSDIc CD Technologies Asia. 127-128. Inc.Id. 97412.R. 142668. id. 128690. 85. 86. Court of Appeals. No.Borjal v.Rollo. citing ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. 120592. 292 SCRA 124. G. 1994. 80. 2001. 81. G. 74. at 95-97. 1999.Id. 79.G. January 21.Eastern Shipping Lines. Civil Code. pp.R. 88. November 25.United Coconut Planters Bank v. 84.Morris v.R. 444 SCRA 28. 437 SCRA 325.R. 2004. Basco. 1998. January 14. id. No. Court of Appeals. 129132.Rollo. 1999. 301 SCRA 1. 344. v.