View full case

LOPE SARREAL v. JAPAN AIR LINES CO.

FACTS:

The petitioner is a prominent international boxing matchmaker and business manager of world champion boxers. On September 14, 1979, he purchased a ticket from the private respondent, Japan Air Lines (JAL), which had various foreign destinations from Bangkok and back to Bangkok. On or about June 23, 1980, the petitioner was in Los Angeles, USA, negotiating a possible match between the World Flyweight Boxing Champion and the winner of a fight scheduled in Manila. The petitioner then flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo and at the Narita Airport Office, he inquired about a JAL flight from Bangkok to Manila on July 2, 1980. A JAL employee assured him that his ticket was endorsed to Thai International and he would be able to reach Manila on July 2, 1980. Relying on this assurance, the petitioner proceeded to Bangkok. However, on the morning of July 2, 1980, he was not allowed to board the Thai International plane because his ticket was not endorseable. Due to this, the negotiations for the match were cancelled, and the champion fought in Japan instead. The petitioner filed an action for damages against JAL, and the RTC ordered JAL to pay various amounts as damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint. The petitioner argues that the decision of the Court of Appeals is contrary to the evidence on record and that it committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals decided a question of substance in a way that is not in accord with law and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.

  2. Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals is contrary to and not supported by the evidence on record.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court declined to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals since, as a general rule, the findings of fact of the appellate court are conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court, except in clearly defined exceptions.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court, subject to defined exceptions.