You are on page 1of 2


Northwestt Airline
Airliness v Chiong
Chiong,, January
January 31, 2008
Philimare, as the authorie! Phili""ine agent o# $rans%cean, hire! Chiong as thir! engineer o# 
 $rans%cean&s &s vessel '() *l+ia. u+se-uently,
u+se-uently, Philmare !is"atche!
!is"atche! a letter o# guarantee to C
/utchins an! Co., $ran%cean&s agent at the an iego Port, conrming Chiong&s arrival in time to
+oar! the vessel. For this "ur"ose, Philimare "urchase! #or Chiong a Northwest "lane ticet #or an
iego #rom 'anila. Chiong, on -ueue at the checin counter, was in#orme! that his name !i! not
a""ear in the list o# conrme! !e"arting "assengers. /e was !irecte! to s"ea to a man stan!ing
outsi!e the Northwes
t&s counters
counters #rom
#rom whom Chiong coul! allege!l
allege!lyy o+tain
o+tain a +oar!ing
+oar!ing "ass.
Posthaste, Chiong a""roache! the man +ut having no 4100 to "ay #or the +oar!ing "ass he went
on -ueue at the checin counter again an! "resente! his ticet where he was ma!e to wait. 5hen
Chiong a""roache! Calvo i# she ha! money #or the +oar!ing "ass, the latter #oun! something
amiss +ecause his "lane ticet was alrea!y conrme!. 6ltimately, Chiong was not allowe! to +oar!
the 7ight an! was una+le to wor at the '() *l+ia.
t a""ea
a""earsrs that
that Chion
g&s name
name was cross
e! out
out an! su+st
te! with
with 95.
95. Costin
e9 in
Northwest&s Air Passenger 'ani#est.
Chiong !eman!e! as recom"ense: ;1< the amount e-uivalent to Chiong&s salary un!er the
latter&s Crew
Crew Agreeme
Agreementnt with $ran
an= ;2< P1>,000
P1>,000 #or Chiong&s
Chiong&s e?"enses
e?"enses in #etchin
g an!
+ringing his #amily #rom amar to 'anila= ;3< P>00,000 as moral !amages= an! ;@< P>00,000 as
legal #ees. 5hen Northwest !emurre!, Chiong le! a com"laint #or +reach o# contract o# carriage.
est contra
te! the claim
claim that
that it +reac
he! its contra
ct o# carri
age with
with Chion
reiterating that Chiong ha! no cause o# action against it +ecause "er its recor!s, Chiong was a 9no
show9 "assenger.
 $he $C
$C ren!ere!
ren!ere! a ecision n!ing
n!ing "re"on!era
nce o# evi!ence
evi!ence in #avor o# Chiong, an!
an! hol!ing
Northwest lia+le #or +reach o# contract o# carriage. $he $C rule! that the evi!ence a!!uce! +y the
"arties su""orte! the conclusion that Chiong was !eli+erately "revente! #rom checingin an! his
+oar!ing "ass unBustia+ly withhel! to accommo!ate an American "assenger +y the name o# 5.
Costine. $he CA arme! the $C ruling.

5hether Northwest +reache! its contract o# carriage with Chiong an! i# so, whether it is lia+le
#or com"ensatory, actual, moral an! e?em"lary !amages, attorney&s #ees, an! costs o# suit

n a!!ition
a!!ition to his testimony
testimony,, Chiong&s
Chiong&s evi!ence
evi!ence consiste
consiste! ! o# a Northwes
Northwestt ticet,
ticet, Chiong&s
"ass"ort an! seaman service recor! +oo !uly stam"e! at the PCD counter, an! the testimonies o# 
Calvo,, Flore
io Dome,
Dome, an! Phi Phili
ine %verse
as *m"loy
mentt an!
an! A!min
ion ;P%*A<
"ersonnel who all i!entie! the signature an! stam" o# the PCD on Chiong&s "ass"ort.
Northwest !i! not "resent any evi!ence to su""ort its +elate! !e#ense that Chiong !e"arte!
#rom the Phili""ines on A"ril 1E, 18 to wor as $hir! *ngineer on +oar! '() *l+ia un!er the
original crew agreement.
agreement. ts +are#ace!
+are#ace! claim that Chiong was a noshow "assenger was +elie! +y
the recor!s.
*ven i# Chiong le#t the Phili""ines on A"ril 1E, 18, it woul! not necessarily "rove that Chiong
was a 9noshow9 on A"ril 1, 18. Neither !oes it negate the alrea!y esta+lishe! #act that Chiong
ha! a conrme! ticet #or A"ril 1, 18, an! rst "asse! through the PCD counter without !elay,
then reache! an! was at the Northwest checin counters on time #or the sche!ule! 7ight.
Northwest +reache! its contract o# carriage with Chiong.
 $ime an! again, we have !eclare!
!eclare! that a contract o# carriage,
carriage, in this case, air trans"ort,
trans"ort, is
"rimarily inten!e! to serve the traveling "u+lic an! thus, im+ue! with "u+lic interest. $he law
ing common
common carrier
carrierss conse-u
y im"oses
im"oses an e?actin
g stan!ar
stan!ar!! o# con!uc
con!uct. t. As the
aggrieve! "arty, Chiong only ha! to "rove the e?istence o# the contract an! the #act o# its non
"er#ormance +y Northwest, as carrier, in or!er to +e awar!e! com"ensatory an! actual !amages.
Article 2220 o# the Civil Co!e o# the Phili""ines, an awar! o# moral !amages, in +reaches o# 
contract, is in or!er u"on a showing that the !e#en!ant acte! #rau!ulently or in +a! #aith. Ga! #aith
!oes not sim"ly connote +a! Bu!gment or negligence. t im"orts a !ishonest "ur"ose or some
moral o+li-uity an! conscious !oing o# a wrong. t means +reach o# a nown !uty through some
motive, interest or ill will that "artaes o# the nature o# #rau!.
 $he awar! o# e?em"lary !amages is also correct given the evi!ence that Northwest acte! in an
o""ressive manner towar!s Chiong.
Attorney&s #ees may +e awar!e! when a "arty is com"elle! to litigate or incur e?"enses to
"rotect his interest, or where the !e#en!ant acte! in gross an! evi!ent +a! #aith in re#using to
satis#y the "laintiH&s "lainly vali!, Bust an! !eman!a+le claim.