Thursday, April 8, 2021

Zalamea v. CA

Facts: Petitioners-spouses Cesar C. Zalamea and Suthira Zalamea, and their daughter, Liana Zalamea, purchased 3 airline tickets from the Manila agent of respondent TransWorld Airlines, Inc. for a flight from New York to Los Angeles on June 6, 1984. The tickets of petitioners-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, petitioners received notice of the reconfirmation of their reservations for said flight. On the appointed date, however, petitioners checked in at 10:00 a.m., an hour earlier than the scheduled flight at 11:00 a.m. but were placed on the wait-list because the number of passengers who had checked in before them had already taken all the seats available on the flight. Liana Zalamea appeared as No. 13 on the wait-list while the two other Zalameas were listed as No. 34, showing a party of two.” Out of the 42 names on the wait-list, the first 22 names were eventually allowed to board the flight to Los Angeles, including petitioner Cesar Zalamea. The two others, on were not able to fly. As it were, those holding full-fare tickets 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. According to Mr. Zalamea, it was only later when he discovered that he was holding his daughters full-fare ticket. 


Even in the next TWA flight to Los Angeles Mrs. Zalamea and her daughter, could not be accommodated because it was fully booked. Thus, they were constrained to book in another flight and purchased two tickets from American Airlines at a cost of $918.00 Dollars. 


Upon their arrival in the Philippines, petitioners tiled an action for damages based on breach of contract of air carriage before the RTC Makati. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioners.


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. 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, no fraud nor bad faith could be imputed on respondent TransWorld Airlines. It also held that there was no bad faith in placing petitioners in the wait-list along with 48 other passengers where full-fare first class tickets were given priority over discounted tickets. 


Issue: Whether or not CA committed error in holding that there was no fraud or bad faith on the part of respondent TWA because it has a right to overbook flights


Held: 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 courts finding that overbooking is specifically allowed by the US Code of Federal Regulations has no basis in fact. 


Existing jurisprudence explicitly states that overbooking amounts to bad faith, entitling the passengers concerned to an award of moral damages. 

No comments:

Post a Comment