Morally damaged

Under what circumstances will a person be entitled to moral damages? Are moral damages intended to enrich a person at the expense of another? These are the questions raised in this case of Alejandrino.

Alejandrino was the City Fiscal of a city down south who boarded a plane in Manila on his way back home. Upon disembarking in Cebu for a connecting flight to his final destination, the connecting flight was cancelled due to a typhoon.

When Alejandrino came to know of the flight cancellation, he immediately proceeded to the Airline Office and requested for hotel accommodation at the airline’s expense. But the airline refused Alejandrino’s request allegedly because of non-availability of room in hotels where petitioner had existing tie-ups. The airline did not inform him also that he may later on be reimbursed for his hotel expenses. Neither was he aware that as early as two hours before the cancellation, the airline was already giving cash assistance of P100 for the first day and P200 for the next day to accommodate the stranded passengers. Because he did not have cash with him at that time, Alejandrino was forced to seek and accept the generosity of a co-passenger with whom he shared a room at a local hotel with the promise to pay his share of expenses upon reaching home. To Alejandrino’s dismay, he noticed that said hotel still had plenty of rooms available.

Then Alejandrino was even more flabbergasted when flight resumed. He came to know from another co-passenger, Mrs. Mercado, an auditor of a bank, that she was reimbursed all her hotel expenses. This was confirmed by another passenger who said he was reimbursed P300 for his hotel expenses when he came to know about it by accident, through Mrs. Mercado. At this point, Alejandrino informed the airline manager in-charge of cancelled flights, that he was going to sue the airline for discriminating against him. It was only then that the airline, through the manager, offered to pay P300. But due to the ordeal and anguish he had undergone, he declined the offer.

Instead, he sued the Airline Company and after trial on the merits, the Court awarded him actual damages of P300, moral damages of P100,000, exemplary damages of P100,000, Attorney’s fees of P15,000 plus six percent interest from the filing of the complaint.

The Airline Company questioned this award of damages contending that it did not act in bad faith when it refused to provide hotel accommodations or to reimburse him for hotel expenses. It theorizes that hotel accommodations or cash assistance given in case a flight is cancelled is merely an amenity and privilege extended at its own discretion but never a right that may be demanded by the passengers. Was the Airline company correct?

No. Assuming arguendo that the airline passengers have no valid right to these amenities in case a flight is cancelled due to force majeure, what makes the Airline liable for damages in this case and under the facts obtaining herein is its blatant refusal to accord the so-called amenities equally to all its stranded passengers. No compelling or justifying reason was advanced for such discriminating and prejudicial conduct.

It has been sufficiently established that it is the airline’s standard policy, whenever a flight has been cancelled, to extend to its hapless passengers cash assistance or to provide them accommodations in hotels with which it has existing tie-ups. In fact, the hotel bills of Alejandrino’s two co-passengers were reimbursed obviously pursuant to that policy. Thus, the Airline Company’s attempt to represent such emergency assistance as being merely a privilege extended and not an obligation, is dubious to say the least.

Based on these facts, it can be correctly concluded that the refund of hotel expenses was surreptitiously and discriminately made by the Airline since the same was not made known to everyone except through word of mouth to a handful of passengers. The Airline Company thus acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier and in discriminating against Alejandrino. The discriminatory act of the airline company against Alejandrino makes it liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages. The six percent interest should however be computed from the date of rendition of judgment and not from filing of complaint because, at the time of filing, the amount of damages to which Alejandrino may be entitled was not yet known and definitely ascertained. Alejandrino’s case is similar to the case of Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. 120262. July 17, 1997.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or jose@sison ph.com