520

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals
*

G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993.

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner, vs. COURT

OF APPEALS and TOMAS L. ALCANTARA, respondents.
Civil Law; Common Carriers; Contract of Carriage; Failure of
common carrier to deliver luggage of passenger at designated place
and time constitutes a breach of contract of carriage.Petitioner
breached its contract of carriage with private respondent When it
failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it

_________________
16
*

Cordero v. Cabral, G.R. No. L-36789, 123 SCRA 532 (1983)

FIRST DIVISION.

521

VOL. 219, MARCH 5, 1993

521

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and
their luggage sefely to their destination, which includes the duty
not to delay their transportation, and the evidence shows that
petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages; When recoverable.
Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage
may only be recoverable in instances where the mishap results in
death of a passenger, or where the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad
faith.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Discourteous and arbitrary

conduct of common carrier's personnel amounts to bad faith
entitling passenger's recovery for moral damages.While the mere
failure of CATHAY to deliver respondent's luggage at the agreed
place and time did not ipso facto amount to willful misconduct since
the luggage was eventually delivered to private respondent, albeit
belatedly, We are persuaded that the employees of CATHAY acted
in bad faith. xxx The language and conduct of petitioner's
representative towards respondent Alcantara was discourteous or
arbitrary to justify the grant of moral damages. The CATHAY
representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he was also
rude and insulting.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In the absence of fraud or bad
faith in breaching contract of carriage, liability of common carrier
limited to natural and probable consequences of said breach,
otherwise, moral and exemplary damages are recoverable.Where
in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline is not
shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for
damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the
breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include
moral and exemplary damages. Conversely, if the defendant airline
is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of
moral and exemplary damages is proper.
Same; Same; Same; Commercial Law; Warsaw Convention;
Recognition of Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of
the Civil Code and other pertinent laws in the determination of
extent of liability of common carriers in cases of breach of contract of
carriage, particularly for willful misconduct of their employees.
Although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law
in this country, being a treaty commitment assumed by the
Philippine
522

522

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

government, said convention does not operate as an exclusive

enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for
breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of
that liability. The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for

damages in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations.

However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of the
Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much :h
less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the
rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if
wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found or
established.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Siguion-Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako and
Tomacruz, Manguiat & Associates for petitioner.
Tanjuatco, Oreta, Tanjuatco, Berenger & Corpus for
private respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of
the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification that
of the trial court by increasing the award of damages in
favor of private respondent Tomas L. Alcantara.
The facts are undisputed: On 19 October 1975,
respondent Tomas L. Alcantara was a first class passenger
of petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CATHAY for
brevity) on its Flight No. CX-900 from Manila to Hongkong
and onward from Hongkong to Jakarta on Flight No. CX711. The purpose of his trip was to attend the following day,
20 October 1975, a conference with the Director General of
Trade of Indonesia, Alcantara being the Executive VicePresident and General Manager of Iligan Cement
Corporation, Chairman of the Export Committee of the
Philippine Cement Corporation, and representative of the
Cement Industry Authority and the Philippine Cement
Corporation. He checked in his luggage which contained
not only his clothing and articles for personal use but also
papers and documents he needed for the confer523

VOL. 219, MARCH 5, 1993

523

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

ence.
Upon his arrival in Jakarta, respondent discovered that

his luggage was missing. When he inquired about his

luggage from CATHAY's representative in Jakarta, private
respondent (was told that his luggage was left behind in
Hongkong. For this, respondent Alcantara was offered
$20.00 as "inconvenience money" to buy his immediate
personal needs until the luggage could be delivered to him.
His luggage finally reached Jakarta more than twenty
four (24) hours after his arrival. However, it was not
delivered to him at his hotel but was required by petitioner
to be picked up by an official of the Philippine Embassy.
On 1 March 1976, respondent filed his complaint against
petitioner with the Court of First Instance (now Regional
Trial Court) of Lanao del Norte praying for temperate,
moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees.
On 18 April 1978, the trial court rendered its decision
ordering CATHAY to pay plaintiff P20,000.00 for moral
damages, P5,000.00 for temperate damages, P10,000.00 for
exemplary damages,
and P25,000.00 for attorney's fees,
1
and the costs.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. CATHAY
assailed the conclusion of the trial court that it was
accountable for breach of contract and questioned the nonapplication by the court of the Warsaw Convention as well
as the excessive damages awarded on the basis of its
finding that respondent Alcantara was rudely treated by
petitioner's employees during the time that his luggage
could not be found. For his part, respondent Alcantara
assigned as error the failure of the trial Court to grant the
full amount of damages sought in his complaint.
On 11 November 1981, respondent Court of Appeals
rendered its decision affirming the findings of fact of the
trial court but modifying its award by increasing the moral
damages to P80,000.00, exemplary damages to P20,000.00
and temperate or moderate damages to P10,000.00. The
award of P25,000.00 for attorney's fees was maintained.
_______________
1

Record on Appeal, pp. 12-23; Rollo, p. 30.

524

524

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

The same grounds raised by petitioner in the Court of

Appeals are reiterated before Us. CATHAY contends that:
(1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner liable to
respondent Alcantara for moral, exemplary and temperate
damages as well as attorney's fees; and, (2) the Court of
Appeals erred in failing to apply the Warsaw Convention
on the liability of a carrier to its passengers.
On its first assigned error, CATHAY argues that
although it failed to transport respondent Alcantara's
luggage on time, the one-day delay was not made in bad
faith so as to justify moral, exemplary and temperate
damages. It submits that the conclusion of respondent
appellate court that private respondent was treated rudely
and arrogantly when he sought assistance from CATHAY's
employees has no factual basis, hence, the award of moral
damages has no leg to stand on.
Petitioner's first assigned error involves
findings of fact
2
which are not reviewable by this Court. At any rate, it is
not impressed with merit. Petitioner breached its contract
of carriage with private respondent when it failed to deliver
his luggage at the designated place and time, it being the
obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers and
their luggage sefely to their destination,3which includes the
duty not to delay their transportation, and the evidence
shows that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
Moral damages predicated upon a breach of contract of
carriage may only be recoverable in instances
where the
4
mishap results in death of a passenger,
or where the
5
carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith.
In the case at bar, both the trial court and the appellate
court found that CATHAY was grossly negligent and
reckless when it failed to deliver the luggage of petitioner
at the appointed place and time. We agree. CATHAY
alleges that as a result of mechanical trouble, all pieces of
luggage on board
_______________
2

Philippine Air Lines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92501, 6 March

1992, 207 SCRA 100.

3

Tan Liao v. American President Lines, 98 Phil. 203.

Arts. 1764 and 2206, New Civil Code.

Art. 2220, New Civil Code; China Airlines, Ltd. v. IAC, G R No.

73835, 17 January 1989, 169 SCRA 226.

525

VOL. 219, MARCH 5, 1993

525

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

the first aircraft bound for Jakarta were unloaded and
transferred to the second aircraft which departed an hour
and a half Iater. Yet, as the Court of Appeals noted,
petitioner was not even aware that it left behind private
respondent's luggage until its attention was called by the
Hongkong Customs authorities. More, bad faith or
otherwise improper conduct may be attributed to the
employees of petitioner. While the mere failure of CATHAY
to deliver respondent's luggage at the agreed place and
time did not ipso facto amount to willful misconduct since
the luggage was6eventually delivered to private respondent,
albeit belatedly, We are persuaded that the employees of
CATHAY acted in bad faith. We refer to the deposition of
Romulo Palma, Commercial Attache of the Philippine
Embassy at Jakarta, who was with respondent Alcantara
when the latter sought assistance from the employees of
CATHAY. This deposition was the basis of the findings of
the lower courts when both awarded moral damages to
private respondent. Hereunder is part of Palma's testimony

"Q hat did Mr. Alcantara say, if any?

A

Mr. Alcantara was of course . . . . I could understand

his position. He was furious for the experience because
probably he was thinking he was going to meet the
DirectorG eneral the following day and, well, he was
with no change of proper clothes and so, I would say,
he was not happy about the situation.

What did Mr. Alcantara say?

He was trying to press the fellow to make the report

and if possible make the delivery of his baggage as
soon as possible.

And what did the agent or duty officer say, if any?

The duty officer, of course, answered back saying What

can we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do
anything, something like it. 'Anyhow you can buy
anything you need, charged to Cathay Pacific.'

What was the demeanor or comportment of the duty

officer of Cathay Pacific when he said to Mr. Alcantara
'You can buy anything chargeable to Cathay Pacific'?

________________
6

Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929, 4 December 1990, 192 SCRA 9.

526

526

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

A If I had to look at it objectively, the duty officer would

like to dismiss the affair as soon as possible 7by saying ?
indifferently 'Don't worry. It can be found.' "
Indeed, the forequoted testimony shows that the language
and conduct of petitioner's representative towards
respondent Alcantara was discourteous or arbitrary to
justify the grant of moral damages. The CATHAY
representative was not only indifferent and impatient; he
was also rude and insulting. He simple advised Alcantara
to buy anything he wanted. But even that was not sincere
because the representative knew that the passenger was
limited only to $20.00 which, certainly, was not enough to
purchase comfortable clothing appropriate for an executive
conference. Considering that Alcantara was not only a
revenue passenger but even paid for a first class airline
accommodation and accompanied at the time by the
Commercial Attache of the Philippine Embassy who was
assisting him in his problem, petitioner or its agents should
have been more courteous and accommodating to private
respondent, instead of giving him a curt reply, "What can
we do, the baggage is missing. I cannot do anything x x x x
Anyhow, you can buy anything you need, charged to Cathay
Pacific." CATHAY's employees should have been more
solicitous to a passenger in distress and assuaged his
anxieties and apprehensions. To compound matters,
CATHAY refused to have the luggage of Alcantara
delivered to him at his hotel; instead, he was required to
pick it up himself and an official of the Philippine Embassy.
Under the circumstances, it is evident that petitioner was
remiss in its duty to provide proper and adequate
assistance to a paying passenger, more so one with first
class accommodation.
Where in breaching the contract of carriage the
defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently
or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the

natural and probable consequences of the breach of

obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen. In that case, such
liability does not
8
include moral and exemplary damages.
_____________
7

Records, pp. 12-13.

China Airlines Limited v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94590,

527

VOL. 219, MARCH 5, 1993

527

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

Conversely, if the defendant airline is shown to have acted
fraudulently or in bad faith, the award of moral and
exemplary damages is proper.
However, respondent Alcantara is not entitled to
temperate damages, contrary to the ruling of the court a
quo, in the absence
of any showing that he sustained some
9
pecuniary loss. It cannot be gainsaid that respondent's
luggage was ultimately delivered to him without serious or
appreciable damage.
As regards its second assigned error, petitioner airline
contends that the extent of its liability for breach of
contract should be limited absolutely to that set forth in the
Warsaw Convention. We do not agree. As We have
repeatedly held, although the Warsaw Convention has the
force and effect of law in this country, being a treaty
commitment assumed by the Philippine government, said
convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of
the instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of
contract of carriage
or as an absolute limit of the extent of
10
that liability. The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier
liable for damages11 in the enumerated cases and under
certain limitations. However, it must not be
_______________
29 July 1992.
9

Art. 2224, New Civil Code.

10

See Note 6; Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, No. L-22425, 31

August 1965, 14 SCRA 1063.

11

Art. 22.1. In the carriage of passengers the liability of the carrier for

each passenger is limited to the sum of 250,000 francs. xxx Nevertheless,

by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher
limit of liability.
"2.a) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of
the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogramme, unless the
passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the package was
handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at
destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In
that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the
declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater than the actual
value to the consignor at delivery.
"2.b) In the case of loss, damage or delay of part of registered baggage
or cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into
consideration in determining the amount to which the
528

528

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and

other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less
exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating
12
the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage,
especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carrier's
employees is found or established, which is clearly the case
before Us. For, the Warsaw Convention itself provides in
Art. 25 that
"(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of
the provisions of this convention which exclude or
limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his
willful misconduct or by such default on his part as,
in accordance with the law of the court to which the
case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to
willful misconduct.
"(2) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail
himself of the said provisions, if the damage is
caused under the same circumstances by any agent
of the carrier acting within the scope of his
employment."
When petitioner airline misplaced respondent's luggage
and failed to deliver it to its passenger at the appointed

place and time, some special species of injury musts have

been caused to him. For sure, the latter underwent
profound distress and anxiety, and the fear of losing the
opportunity to fulfill the purpose of his trip. In fact, for
want of appropriate clothings for the occasion brought
about by the delay of the arrival of his luggage, to his
embarrassment and consternation respondent Alcantara
had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged conference
with the Director
General of Trade of the host country.
13
In one case, this Court observed that a traveller would
_____________
carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the
package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or
delay of a part of the registered baggage or cargo, or'! of an object
contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the
same baggage check or the same air way bill, the total weight of such
package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in
determining the limit of liability "
12

See Note. 6.

13

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC G R No. 66888, 21 June

1990, 186 SCRA 687.

529

VOL. 219, MARCH 5, 1993

529

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. us. Court of Appeals

naturally suffer mental anguish, anxiety and shock when
he finds that his luggage did not travel with him and he
finds himself in a foreign land without any article of
clothing other than what he has on.
Thus, respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary
damages. We however find the award by the Court of
Appeals of P80,000.00 for moral damages excessive, hence,
We reduce the amount to P30,000.00. The exemplary
damages of P20,000.00 being reasonable is maintained, as
well as the attorney's fees of P25,000.00 considering that
petitioner's act or ommission has compelled Alcantara to
litigate with14 third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the exception of the
award of temperate damages of P10,000.00 which is

deleted, while the award of moral damages of P80,000.00 is

reduced to P30,000.00. The award of P20,000.00 for
exemplary damages is maintained as reasonable together
with the attorney's fees of P25,000.00. The moral and
exemplary damages shall earn interest at the legal rate
from 1 March 1976 when the complaint was filed until full
payment.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Grio-Aquino and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.
Decision affirmed with modifications,
Note.Where airline passenger's luggage was left at
airline's fault in Manila and passenger was not adequately
or properly given assistance in Hawaii to locate his luggage
an award of moral damages is proper (Pan American World
Airways, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 186 SCRA
687).
oOo
_______________
14

Art. 2208, par. (2), New Civil Code.

530

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.