G.R. No. 185891 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, VS. JUANITA REYES, WILFI EDO REYES, MICHAEL ROY REYES, SIXTA LAPUZ, AND SAMPAGUITA TRAVEL CORP..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the herein plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit. Defendants counterclaims and cross-claims are similarly ordered dismissed for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to cost. [10] The trial court found that respondents were in possession of valid tickets but did not have confirmed reservations for their return trip to Manila. Additionally, the trial court observed that the several PNRs opened by Sampaguita Travel created confusion in the bookings. The trial court however did not find any basis to establish liability on the part of either Cathay Pacific or Sampaguita Travel considering that the cancellation was not without any justified reason. Finally, the trial court denied the claims for damages for being unsubstantiated. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 22 October 2008, the Court of Appeals ordered Cathay Pacific to pay P25,000.00 each to respondents as nominal damages. Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration, Cathay Pacific filed the instant petition for review assigning the following as errors committed by the Court of Appeals: A. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS IS LIABLE FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES FOR ITS ALLEGED INITIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH THE PASSENGERS EVEN THOUGH CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS WAS ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR THE PREDICAMENT OF THE RESPONDENT PASSENGERS. B. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RELYING ON MATTERS NOT PROVED DURING THE TRIAL AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AS BASIS FOR HOLDING CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIABLE FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES. C. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIABLE FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT SIXTA LAPUZ. D. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT HOLDING SAMPAGUITA TRAVEL CORP. [LIABLE] TO CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS FOR WHATEVER DAMAGES THAT THE AIRLINE COMPANY WOULD BE ADJUDGED THE RESPONDENT PASSENGERS. E. ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF NOMINAL DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED. [11] Cathay Pacific assails the award of nominal damages in favor of respondents on the ground that its action of cancelling the flight bookings was justifiable. Cathay Pacific reveals that upon investigation, the respondents had no confirmed bookings for their return flights. Hence, it was not obligated to transport the respondents. In fact, Cathay Pacific adds, it exhibited good faith in accommodating the respondents despite holding unconfirmed bookings. Cathay Pacific also scores the Court of Appeals in basing the award of nominal damages on the alleged asthma