Zalamea v. Court of Appeals

Group1
Case # 9 - Junio
Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals
288 SCRA 23 (1993)
FACTS:
Spouses Cesar and Suthira Zalamea, and their daughter, Liana Zalamea, purchased three (3) airline tickets from the
Manila agent of respondent TransWorld Airlines, Inc. (TWA) for a flight from New York to Los Angeles on June 6,
1984. The tickets of the spouses were purchased at a discount of 75% while that of their daughter was a full fare
ticket. All three tickets represented confirmed reservations.
While in New York, on June 4, 1984, the spouses Zalamea and their daughter received a notice of reconfirmation of
their reservations for said flight. On the appointed date, however, the spouses Zalamea and their daughter checked
in at 10:00 am, an hour earlier than the scheduled flight at 11:00 am but were placed on the wait-list because the
number of passengers who checked in before them had already taken all the seats available on the flight.
Out of the 42 names on the wait-list, the first 22 names were eventually allowed to board the flight to Los Angeles,
including Cesar Zalamea. The two others, on the other hand, being ranked lower than 22, were not able to fly. As it
were, those holding full-fare ticket were given first priority among the wait-listed passengers. Mr. Zalamea, who was
holding the full-fare ticket of his daughter, was allowed to board the plane; while his wife and daughter, who
presented the discounted tickets were denied boarding. Even in the next TWA flight to Los Angeles, Mrs. Zalamea
and her daughter, could not be accommodated because it was full booked. Thus, they were constrained to book in
another flight and purchased two tickets from American Airlines.
Upon their arrival in the Philippines, the spouses Zalamea filed an action for damages based on breach of contract of
air carriage before the RTC of Makati which rendered a decision in their favor ordering the TWA to pay the price of
the tickets bought from American Airlines together with moral damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the CA held
that moral damages are recoverable in a damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only where
there is fraud or bad faith. It further stated that since it is a matter of record that overbooking of flights is a common
and accepted practice of airlines in the United States and is specifically allowed under the Code of Federal
Regulations by the Civil Aeronautics Board, neither fraud nor bad faith could be imputed on TWA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in accepting the finding that overbooking is specifically allowed by the US Code of
Federal Regulations and in holding that there was no fraud or bad faith on the part of TWA ?
HELD:
The CA was in error. There was fraud or bad faith on the part of TWA when it did not allow Mrs. Zalamea and her
daughter to board their flight for Los Angeles in spite of confirmed tickets. The US law or regulation allegedly
authorizing overbooking has never been proved.
1.) Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the court take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proved. Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested
by the officers having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy and accompanied with a certificate that such
officer has custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul-general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Phil. stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office. Here, TWA relied solely on the testimony of its
customer service agent in her deposition that the Code of Federal Regulations of the Civil Aeronautic Board allows
overbooking. Aside from said statement, no official publication of said code was presented as evidence. Thus, the
CA’s finding that overbooking is specifically allowed by the US Code of Federal Regulations has no basis in fact.
"That there was fraud or bad faith on the part of respondent airline when it did not allow petitioners to board their
flight for Los Angeles in spite of confirmed tickets cannot be disputed. The U.S. law or regulation allegedly
authorizing overbooking has never been proved. Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts take
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. Written law may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary
of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal
of his office.
Respondent TWA relied solely on the statement of Ms. Gwendolyn Lather, its customer service agent, in her
deposition dated January 27, 1986 that the Code of Federal Regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board allows
overbooking. Aside from said statement, no official publication of said code was presented as evidence. Thus,
respondent court's finding that overbooking is specifically allowed by the US Code of Federal Regulations has no
basis in fact."
"Even if the claimed U.S. Code of Federal Regulations does exist, the same is not applicable to the case at bar in
accordance with the principle of lex loci contractus which require that the law of the place where the airline ticket
was issued should be applied by the court where the passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and the
ticket is issued in such State by the defendant airline. Since the tickets were sold and issued in the Philippines, the
applicable law in this case would be Philippine law."

Zalamea v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zalamea v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zalamea v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group1

You might also like