G.R. No. 119995 - CARLOS SINGSON, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, INC..

Ruling

accordingly, modified its judgment by deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages, and the attorneys fees as well. Reproduced hereunder are the pertinent portions of the decision of the appellate court [5] - There is enough merit in this appeal to strike down the trial courts award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees x x x x In this material respect, the appellant correctly underscores the fact that the appellee held an open dated ticket for his return flight from San Francisco to Manila via Hongkong and that, as a consequence, the latter was not actually confirmed on the July 1, 1988 flight or, for that matter, any of the appellants flights x x x x The appellant certainly committed no breach of contract of carriage when it refused the appellee the booking he requested on the said July 1, 1988 flight. As a "chance passenger," the latter had no automatic right to fly on that flight and on that date. Even assuming arguendo that a breach of contract of carriage may be attributed the appellant, the appellees travails were directly traceable to the mistake in detaching the San Francisco-Hongkong flight coupon of his plane ticket which led to the appellants refusal to honor his plane ticket. While that may constitute negligence on the part of the air carrier, the same cannot serve as basis for an award of moral damages. The rule is that moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only where (a) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and (b) it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith even if death does not result x x x x In disallowing the trial courts award of moral damages, the Court takes appropriate note of the necessity for the appellants verification of the status of the missing flight coupon as well as the justifiable delay thereto attendant x x x x Contrary to the appellees allegation that he was peremptorily refused confirmation of his flight, and arrogantly told to verify the missing flight coupon on his own, the record shows that the appellant adopted such measures as were reasonably required under the circumstances. Even the testimonies offered by the appellee and his witnesses collectively show no trace of fraud or bad faith as would justify the trial courts award of moral damages. The basis for the award of moral damages discounted, there exists little or no reason to allow the exemplary damages and attorneys fees adjudicated in favor of the appellee. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied for lack of merit and for being pro forma he came to us for review. He claims that the trial court found CATHAY guilty of gross negligence amounting to malice and bad faith in: (a) detaching the wrong coupon; (b) using that error to deny confirmation of his return flight; and, (c) directing petitioner to prematurely return to San Francisco to verify his missing coupon. He also underscores the scornful and demean