I.

Name of the case

- A CASE STUDY ON BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

II. Citation
- Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > December 2003
Decisions > G.R. No.142305 December 10, 2003 - SINGAPORE AIRLINES
LIMITED v. ANDION FERNANDEZ:

III. Facts
- The respondent, Andion Fernandez, is a well-known soprano here in the
Philippines and abroad. She was pursuing a Master's degree in music major in
voice at the time of the incident, availing a Federal Republic of Germany
educational grant. On February 3–4, 1991, she received an invitation to
perform for the King and Queen of Malaysia. She purchased a ticket from
Singapore Airlines (SAL) for this purpose. Route from Frankfurt to Manila to
Malaysia. The respondent had to go to Manila to acquire her outfit and practice
with the pianist. SAL issued tickets for flight SQ27, which departed Frankfurt
on January 27, 1991, for Singapore, with connections to Manila on January 28,
1991, in the morning. SQ 27 departed Frankfurt on January 27, 1991, however
it took an extra two hours to get to Singapore on January 28. The plane headed
for Manila had already taken off by that point. When Fernandez stepped off the
plane in Singapore, she went to the transit desk at Changi Airport and was
greeted by a female employee who informed her that there were no more
flights to Manila on that day, so she had to stay in Singapore. If she wanted to,
she could have flown to Hong Kong, but woth her own money. The respondent
spent the night in Singapore with a relative. The following day, she was driven
back to the airport when she tried to make a quick reservation but was refused
by a male employee who said, "Can't you see I am doing something." When
she stated her situation, she was told: "It's your problem, not ours."

IV. History
A. Case of the Respondent
- The respondent, Andion Fernandez, is a well-known soprano here in the
Philippines and abroad. She was pursuing a Master's degree in music major in
voice at the time of the incident, availing a Federal Republic of Germany
educational grant. On February 3 and 4, 1991, she was given the opportunity
to perform in front of Malaysia's King and Queen. For this performing
engagement, Singapore Airlines, the petitioner, sold her a flight ticket that
would take her from Frankfurt, Germany, to Manila on January 28, 1991. She
would travel to Malaysia the following day from Manila. The respondent had
to travel to Manila to get her outfit, as well as to practice and plan with her
pianist for the said performance. The petitioner provided the respondent with
a ticket for Singapore Airlines Flight No. SQ 27 departed Frankfurt, Germany
on January 27, 1991 with connections from Singapore to Manila to
Singapore. Plane No. SQ 27 was supposed to depart Frankfurt at 1:45 pm on
January 27, 1991, and touch down in Singapore at 8:50 am on January 28,
 1991. Flight No. SQ 72 departed Singapore at 11:00 AM on January 28,
1991, and touched down in Manila at 2:20 PM the same day. The Flight No.
SQ 27 on January 27, 1991, departed from Frankfurt but landed in Singapore
two hours later, or at around 11:00 in the morning of January 28, 1991. When
the respondent and approximately 25 other passengers arrived at Changi
Airport in Singapore, the flight to Manila had already taken off as scheduled.

B. Appeal of the Petitioner

- Singapore Airlines, the petitioner, appealed the decision to the Court of
Appeals. The CA issued the contested ruling on June 10, 1998, concluding
that there was no reversible mistake in the trial court's decision that was
under appeal. The petitioner then submitted the current petition for review,
pointing out the following mistakes:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING

INTO TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT AWARDED
DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF
THE PETITIONER TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING

THAT THE PETITIONER ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING

THE PETITIONER’S COUNTERCLAIMS.

V. Issue
A. What is a contract carriage?
- A contract of carriage is one made between the consignor, consignee, or
passenger and a carrier of goods or passengers. Carriage contracts often outline
the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of the parties, covering issues like
acts of God and containing phrases like force majeure.

B. Do you agree the Singapore Airlines breached the contract of carriage with
the respondent?
- In the Court of Appeals' decision exonerating the carrier from liability for
breaching its contract of carriage, I agree with Singapore Airlines that the
airline had broken the contract of carriage with the respondents. Because the
petitioner failed to get the respondent to her destination in a timely manner,
the petitioner was in violation of its contract of carriage with the respondent.
Unacceptable behavior was displayed by the petitioner. Thus, even though
there may not have been any ill intent involved, the breach of a known duty
was caused by an interest-based motive.

C. Was SQ right in their point that they practiced extraordinary diligence that is
why the plane from Frankfurt to Singapore was delayed? Why?
 - Yes, as the petitioner lacked the needed diligence in informing its
passengers of the consequences of the delay in their flights. The trial court
clarified, the petitioner disputes the amount of damages awarded, claiming
that it was made with the unusual care that the law demanded in the present
situation. Flight No. SQ 27 was delayed on January 28, 1991, for more than
two hours from Frankfurt to Singapore. It was beyond the control of the
petitioner and a result of a fortunate event. The petitioner's flight, which was
departing from Copenhagen, Denmark, on January 27, 1991, was delayed due
to bad weather. The airport was covered in fog, making it impossible for the
plane to take off. Due to the "snowball effect," other flights were also
delayed.
the plane transporting Respondent arrived in Singapore two (2) hours later
than expected. The delay was made worse by the fact that when the plane's
customary path via the Middle East was impractical owing to the raging Gulf
War back then.It had to travel through the more crowded and restricted
Russian airspace.

D. Did SQ acted in bad faith over the respondent? If no, why? If yes, cite the
situation wherein bad faith was acted upon.
- Yes, because the trial court found that SQ's employees at the Singapore
airport failed to give the respondent the attention and treatment that was
allegedly required under the circumstances. She received no assistance from
the rude woman at the counter. The respondent further claimed that she was
denied access to the company phone to make a call to her long distance
mother in Manila unless she threatened to sue the business. The male staff
member at the counter responded that he was busy tending to other
passengers in queue at the desk where it says: "Immediate Attention to
Passengers with Immediate Booking," which she found impolite. The trial
court came to the conclusion that the inattentiveness and rudeness of the
petitioner's staff toward the situation of the respondent was severe enough to
constitute bad faith. We see no reason to disagree with this finding, which is
often binding on the Court.

E. If you were the SQ counter staff during that time, what actions you should
have done about the case of the respondent?
- If I did something wrong while working as SQ counter staff at the time, I
would be honest about it. Additionally, the male employee treated her rudely,
and the lady employee at the desk was unhelpful and unkind. They should be
sued by the airline company.

VI.Ruling and Court’s Reasoning

A. Ruling: Answer the issue with the Yes or No. Give the awarded damages
to the one who won the case
- Yes, when a passenger receives a ticket from an airline, a contract of
carriage exists once a certain flight is confirmed for a specific date. The
traveler has all right to expect traveling on that flight and on that particular
 day. If he did not, the carrier opens itself up to legal action for a breach of the
carriage contract.

B. Rule of Law: What is the rule of law applied by the court for its decision?
Ex. Rule on the contract of carriage, why?
- RTC made a decision in respondent's favor and granted damages. The
petitioner disputes the damages judgment. Asserting that, under the
circumstances, it exercised with the extraordinary diligence required by law
and that the flight's delay was caused by an unforeseen circumstance outside
of the petitioner's control. The plane could not take off from the Copenhagen
airport since it was covered in fog. The other flights were affected by a
"snowball effect" brought on by this delay. Therefore, the air carriage
contract is an odd one. The law, which is driven by the public interest,
mandates that common carriers transport passengers as safely as human care
and foresight, with due regard for all the circumstances. The affected party
does not have to establish negligence or fault on the side of the common
carrier in order to bring a case for violation of carriage contract. The
existence of the contract and the fact that the carrier failed to fulfill it are all
that must be proven.

C. Discuss the court’s reasoning and explain how it arrived at its ruling.
- It is clear that the petitioner broke its carriage agreement with the
respondent. The petitioner was fully entitled to be sued by the respondent for
this violation. The argument that the delay resulted from unavoidable
circumstances that were beyond of the petitioner's control is unavailing. In
this case, the petitioner's employees engaged in wanton, oppressive, or
malicious behavior, in violation of Article 2232 of the Civil Code, which
states that in a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship, exemplary
damages may only be granted if the defendant acted in a "wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, or malevolent manner." Therefore, in this scenario, exemplary
damages should be warranted. The petition is therefore denied. The Court of
Appeals's decision is affirmed.

VII. Conclusion: Discuss your opinion about the case. Whether or not you
agree with the decision of the court on the issue. State the reasons why.
- I disagree because the petition was rejected. Because a passenger who
contracts for a certain flight has a reason in making a choice which must be
respected. This choice cannot be changed after being made by the airline
without that company being held accountable.We find the petitioner to be
obviously responsible for the breach of its contract of carriage with the
respondent as a result of the petitioner's failure to get the respondent to her
destination on time.