Nacion, Mary Joyce B.

BSITM TTO 3-YA-3

LATH: CASE STUDY

Question 1: Make a one-page summary on the case making point on the obligation of Cathay
Pacific to its passengers, the case of the Vazquez family and in your own point of view, whether or
not they have the right to file a case or not for the seat upgrading that they got from Cathay Pacific.

Cathay Pacific may be a business organization that flies passengers and freight round the world. one in
all the routes it serves is that the Manila-Hong Kong-Manila route. As a part of its marketing strategy,
Cathay Pacific provides regular fliers membership in its Marco Polo Club. Members are eligible for a
spread of privileges, including free priority booking upgrades if the chance arises. As a result, if the
Business Class Section is fully booked, an everyday traveler registered in Business Class is given priority
for top quality upgrades.

Respondents-spouses Dr. Daniel Earnshaw Vazquez and Maria Luisa Madrigal Vazquez are frequent
Cathay Pacific flyers and members of the traveller Club Gold Card. On September 24, 1996, the
Vazquezes, along with their maid and two friends, Pacita Cruz and Josefina Vergel de Dios, flew to Hong
Kong for pleasure and business. They were planned to fly back to Manila on Cathay Pacific Flight CX-905
at 9:20 p.m. on September 28, 1996. The Vazquezes and their companions checked their luggage at
Cathay Pacific's Kai Tak Airport check-in counter two hours before their flight's point in time and got
their boarding passes.The Vazquezes and their two companions received Business Class boarding passes,
while their maid received Economy Class boarding passes. After that, they proceeded to the Business
Class passenger lounge.

The Vazquezes and their two companions got wind of gate No. 28, which was reserved for Business Class
passengers, when the boarding time was announced. the bottom hostess scanned Dr. Vazquez's pass
and input it into an electronic machine reader or computer at the gate. the bottom attendant, Clara Lai
Han Chiu, assisted the bottom stewardess. Ms. Chiu observed a message on the pc monitor confirming
the Vazquezes' "seat change" from Business Class to top notch.

Dr. Vazquez was contacted by Ms. Chiu, who informed him that his family's accommodation had been
upgraded to firstclass. Dr. Vazquez denied the upgrade, claiming that traveling in firstclass while their
visitors sat in Business Class would be disrespectful; also, they planned to debate business problems
throughout the flight. He also informed Ms. Chiu that other passengers could be moved to the primary
Class Section. Ms. Chiu was shocked by the Vazquezes' unwillingness to upgrade and addressed her
employer, who directed her to handle matters and encourage them to simply accept the upgrade. Ms.
Chiu advised him that the Business Class was fully booked, but that as a Polo member, he could still fly.
They got first priority for promotion to top quality. Dr. Vazquez continued to refuse, so Ms. Chiu
reminded them that they might be denied permission to fly if they didn't profit of the possibility. After
speaking along with his two buddies, Dr. Vazquez eventually gave in. Mr. Vazquez and he then
proceeded to the primary Class Cabin.

When the Vazquezes told Ms. Chiu that they preferred Business Class, she "obstinately,
uncompromisingly, and in an exceedingly loud, discourteous, and harsh voice threatened" that they
might be unable to board and depart with the flight unless they visited top notch because Business Class
was overbooked, in keeping with their complaint. Because the incident was witnessed by all of the
opposite passengers looking forward to boarding, Ms. Chiu's ranting angered, embarrassed, and
humiliated them. They also claimed that they were unfairly delayed in boarding the plane, which after
they finally did, the front storage container was already full. A steward told Dr. Vazquez to place his
carry-on luggage within the overhead storage box. His bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome deteriorated as
a results of the personnel' failure to help him in putting up his luggage, causing terrible pain in his arm
and wrist. The Vazquezes also claimed to "belong to the very best and absolute top elite of both
Philippine Society and therefore the Philippine financial world," yet as being "among the wealthiest
individuals within the Philippine economy."

Question 2:By upgrading the seat accommodation of the Vazquezes from Business Class to First
Class, did Cathay breachits contract of carriage with the Vazquezes. Why?

Yes. Breach of contract is defined as "failure to accommodates the terms of a contract without legal
justification." Although respondents have the choice to upgrade their seats, this feature is also waived,
as respondents did. this could not be imposed on them despite their strong opposition. They were
aware that as Club members, that they had first dibs on upgrading their seat accommodations at no
additional cost when the chance arose. However, like other rights, such precedence are often waived.
Before assigning seats to other passengers, the Vazquezes should are asked if they wanted to use the
privilege or accept a seat change.

Normally, an upgrade would be welcomed and accepted because it'd imply a nicer lodging. But,
whatever their reasoning and however bizarre it should are, the Vazquezes had every right to say no the
upgrade and demand on the Business Class accommodations that they had reserved and which were
specified on their boarding cards. They clearly waived their priority or preference after they requested
that other passengers be offered the upgrade. Despite their strong opposition, it shouldn't are imposed
on them. Cathay violated its carriage contract with the Vazquezes by insisting on the upgrade. By
insisting on the upgrade, Cathay breached its contract of carriage with the Vazquezes. We are not,
however, convinced that the upgrading or the breach of contract was attended by fraud or bad faith.

Yes. The Cathay breached its contract of carriage since they ignore the objection of the Vazquezes. The
privilege was to be upgraded to first class whenever there's a chance arises but the privilege shouldn’t
be forced to anyone who rejects it. The Cathay overlooked the possibility of giving the offer to other
passengers similar to what Dr. Vazquez said them to try and do that could possibly resolve the problem
of overbooking within the business section.

Question 3: Was the upgrading of seat by Cathay Pacific tainted with fraud or bad faith? Explain your
answer.

No. However, I am not convinced that the upgrade or breach of contract was motivated by
deception or malice. As a result, the second issue should be dealt with in the negative. There was no
evidence of bad belief or fraud in the seat upgrade or overbooking of the flight because it was within the
10% tolerance. I am NOT convinced that the upgrading of the seat is tainted with fraud or bad faith
because there was no persuasive evidence for that. Ms. Chiu explained the reasons for the upgrade of
seat and is honest that their seats were already given to other passengers and that the business class
section is fully booked. However, Ms. Chiu might appear to have a poor judgement on the issue since
she failed to consider remedying the situation but that doesn’t show a strong proof for a fraud or bad
faith

Question 4:Are the Vazquezes entitled for damages? Why?

Yes, in step with the tribunal, Cathay offers variety of seat classes from which consumers can choose for
a spread of reasons or motives, like economic constraints or whim. The judgement places a transparent
obligation on Cathay to move clients within the service class that they need chosen. Without exposing
itself to liability, the carrier cannot compel a passenger to vary his mind freely. Despite their protests,
the Vazquezes' lodgings were upgraded thanks to overbooking in Business Class.

Following the petitioners' appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a very decision dated July 24, 20012, deleted
the indemnity award and reduced the awards for moral and restitution to P250,000 and P50,000,
respectively, for every of the Vazquezes, additionally as attorney's fees and litigation expenses to
P50,000 for both of them. The sum of amends (Art. 2221, NCC) awarded was P 5,000. The Court of
Appeal's ruling was overturned and also the moral damages (Art. 2220, NCC) and attorney's costs were
removed.

Yes, because the latter pushed through with the upgrading despite the objections of the Vazquezes. It is
the Cathay's obligation to transport passengers within the class of their choice and can't force the
passenger to involuntarily change their preference

Question 5:Did Cathay Pacific acted on bad faith when they overbooked the business class section of
the flight? Is overbooking legal or not?

They didn't act in misconduct. Lack of integrity entails a dishonest goal or some moral obliquity,
still because the conscious commission of a wrong, a breach of a recognized obligation through some
motivation, interest, or ill will that's fraudulent in nature. Overbooking is legal. it's a widely accepted
practice within the airline industry that adheres to International transportation Association (IATA)
regulations. No. Overbooking may be a common practice among airlines and is in accordance with the
International transportation Association (IATA) regulations. It is when some people don't show au fait
their flight thus, airlines overbook to ensure full flight and maximize their profits. Also, there have been
no evidence that passenger was quarantined or was refused to board the aircraft

Question 6:Before Cathay Pacific filed for an appeal in the Court of Appeals, the lower court ordered
Cathay Pacific to pay the Vazquezes of P2 million pesos and P5 million pesos each for the
moral and exemplary damages. Do you think that the lower court is just in ordering a huge amount
of damages in favor of the plaintiff?

Yes, the court has ordered an oversized sum of cash to be paid get into damages. These are substantial
sums, implying that the inferior court found within the plaintiffs' favor. The Court of Appeals, however,
in its decision of July 24, 20012, deleted the award for damages and reduced the awards for moral and
indemnification for every of the Vazquezes to P250,000 and P50,000, respectively, further as attorney's
fees and litigation expenses for both of them to P50,000.I don’t think that the order is simply. The Court
of Appeals already said that they don't seem to be convinced of bad faith on the act of Cathay’s
personnel. Also,there wasn't enough evidence that the Cathay Airways exceeded the 10%limit for
overbooking which can not be considered as an act of bad faith ontheir part

Question 7: If you were the supervisor of Cathay Pacific, will you insist on asking the passengers to
take the upgrade seats even though they don’t want to take it?

No, insisting on upgraded seats whether or not the passengers don't want them may be a contract
violation that might lead to legal consequences. If I were the supervisor, i'll NOT visiting insist the
passengers to require the upgrade especially if it’s against their preference. They may have the privilege
to get on the primary class but it should depends on whether or not they want it or not. What i'd do is
that, offer it to some other person to avoid any inconvenience.

Question 8:Based on the facts presented, do you believe that Ms. Chiu acted in bad faith, shouted
and humiliated the Vazquezes during the boarding time?

No, Ms. Chiu didn't yell at or mean to be disrespectful to Dr. Vazquez, in line with the Court of
Appeals, whether or not it appeared that thanks to the latter, who was a member of the Philippine elite
and wasn't accustomed being harrassed by anyone. Ms. Chiu was a city Chinese woman whose broken
Chinese was difficult to know and whose tone of voice, thanks to cultural differences, may encounter as
harsh or belligerent to Filipinos. She didn't, however, behave with provision, deception, gross
negligence, or ill faith. The court of appeals found that she had not acted with malice, fraud, gross
negligence, or bad faith. No. it's said within the article that Ms. Chiu was a Hongkong Chinese making it
hard for her to know and whose manner of speaking might sound harsh to Filipinos due to cultural
differences. What seems to seem in

here is that there have been misunderstandings between the 2 but it doesn’t mean she acted on bad
faith as what the court also said on the trial.