View full case

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. SPS. DANIEL VAZQUEZ

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (Cathay), a common carrier engaged in transporting passengers by air, and respondents-spouses Dr. Daniel Earnshaw Vazquez and Maria Luisa Madrigal Vazquez who are frequent flyers of Cathay and Gold Card members of its Marco Polo Club. On September 28, 1996, the Vazquezes and their companions checked in at Cathay's check-in counter at the airport for their return flight from Hongkong to Manila. They were given Business Class boarding passes, except for their maid who received an Economy Class pass. However, when boarding time was announced, it was discovered that the Vazquezes' accommodations were involuntarily upgraded from Business Class to First Class due to the Business Class section being fully booked. Dr. Vazquez initially refused the upgrade, but after being convinced by a ground attendant, he and Mrs. Vazquez eventually agreed and proceeded to the First Class Cabin. Upon their return to Manila, the Vazquezes wrote a letter demanding indemnification and an apology from Cathay for the alleged "humiliation and embarrassment" caused by its employees. When no response was received, the Vazquezes filed an action for damages against Cathay before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. They claimed that they were unjustifiably delayed, verbally threatened, and subjected to public humiliation, which caused them annoyance, embarrassment, and extreme pain.

The case involves a dispute between the Vazquez spouses and Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. The Vazquez spouses were passengers of Flight CX-905 from Hong Kong to Manila. They purchased Business Class seats and were notified by Cathay's representative, Ms. Chiu, that they were upgraded to First Class due to the Business Class section being fully booked. Dr. Vazquez refused the upgrade and blocked the boarding queue, demanding that his two friends also be upgraded. Cathay attempted to upgrade the Vazquezes' companions but found they did not have priority. They tried to book the Vazquezes back to their original seats but were unsuccessful. Eventually, the Vazquezes agreed to take the First Class accommodation.

During the trial, Dr. Vazquez testified and was supported by his two friends who witnessed the incident. Cathay presented evidence including testimonies from its employees, Mr. Yuen and Mr. Robson, who explained Cathay's policy of upgrading preferred passengers. They also argued that overbooking is a common practice in the airline industry. Cathay claimed that its employees acted in good faith and denied any instances of shouting, humiliation, or disrespect towards the Vazquezes.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Vazquezes and awarded them nominal, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals modified the damages awarded, deleting the exemplary damages and reducing the other amounts. The Court of Appeals held that by upgrading the Vazquezes without their consent, Cathay breached the contract of carriage.

Dr. Frederick Vazquez and Dr. Marichu Vazquez, well-known medical practitioners in the Philippines, were on a flight to Hong Kong aboard Flight CX-905 of Cathay Pacific Airways. They had booked their tickets for the Business Class section but were informed that the section was full and they were upgraded to the First Class section. The Vazquezes objected to the upgrading as they did not want to be separated from their friends who were seated in Business Class. They insisted on staying in Business Class but the flight attendant, Ms. Emily Chiu, persuaded them to move to First Class by assuring them that the cabin was empty and would be much more comfortable. Dr. Vazquez claimed that Ms. Chiu shouted at him and Ms. Chiu accused Dr. Vazquez of being rude and insulting towards her. Moreover, Dr. Vazquez alleged that the flight stewardess in the First Class cabin refused to help him lift his baggage despite his request, citing his condition of "bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome." The Vazquezes sent a demand letter to Cathay Pacific Airways but Hong Kong-based lawyer, Michael Yuen, who was tasked to respond to the letter, delayed in doing so.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the upgrading of the seat accommodation of the Vazquezes constituted a breach of contract.

  2. Whether the upgrading was tainted with fraud or bad faith.

  3. Whether the Vazquezes are entitled to damages.

  4. Whether Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Vazquezes by upgrading their seat accommodations without consent

  5. Whether the upgrading or breach of contract was attended by fraud or bad faith

  6. Whether the Vazquezes are entitled to moral damages

  7. Whether the award of moral damages is proper in a breach of contract of carriage.

  8. Whether the award of exemplary damages is proper in this case.

  9. Whether the award of attorney's fees is proper in this case.

  10. Whether the award of nominal damages is proper in this case.

RULING:

  1. The Court resolved the first issue in the affirmative. While a contract of carriage existed between Cathay and the Vazquezes, the upgrading of the seat accommodation constituted a breach of contract. The Vazquezes consented to an agreement for transportation in the Business Class Section, but were upgraded to the First Class Section without their prior notice or consent.

  2. The Court found no evidence that the upgrading was tainted with fraud or bad faith. The actions of Cathay's personnel, including the flight stewardess and the representative who informed the Vazquezes of the seat change, were not deemed to be in deliberate malice, deceit, gross negligence, or bad faith.

  3. The Court held that the Vazquezes were entitled to damages. The breach of contract by Cathay resulted in the Vazquezes suffering injury or damage. The specific amount of damages to be awarded was not mentioned in the partial digest.

  4. Yes, Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage with the Vazquezes by upgrading their seat accommodations without their consent.

  5. No, the upgrading or breach of contract was not attended by fraud or bad faith.

  6. The award of moral damages to the Vazquezes is not justified.

  7. The award of moral damages is not proper in a breach of contract of carriage unless the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith or the mishap resulted in the death of a passenger. In this case, the breach of contract of carriage was not attended by fraud or bad faith, thus, the award of moral damages has no legal basis.

  8. The award of exemplary damages is not proper in this case because there was no evidence of bad faith, wantonness, fraud, or malevolence on the part of the airline. Moreover, the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages before being entitled to exemplary damages.

  9. Since the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated, the award of attorney's fees has no legal basis.

  10. The most that can be adjudged for the breach of contract of carriage is an award for nominal damages in order to vindicate or recognize the violated right of the plaintiff. In this case, considering that the breach was intended to give more benefit and advantage to the claimant, the award of nominal damages is reduced to P5,000.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons wherein one agrees to give something or render some service to another for a consideration.

  • Breach of contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to comply with the terms of a contract.

  • In cases of breach of contract of carriage, it may involve either the bumping off of a passenger with confirmed reservation or the downgrading of a passenger's seat accommodation from one class to a lower class.

  • Damnum absque injuria refers to damage or injury inflicted without injustice, loss or damage without violation of a legal right, or a wrong done to a person for which the law provides no remedy.

  • Upgrading of seat accommodation without prior notice or consent can constitute a breach of contract.

  • The priority of seat upgrade can be waived by the passenger.

  • The allegations of fraud and bad faith require clear and convincing proof to be substantiated.

  • Fraud refers to inducement through insidious machination, while bad faith involves a breach of a known duty with a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

  • Upgrading in seat accommodations is for the better condition and benefit of the passenger.

  • An overbooking that does not exceed ten percent does not amount to bad faith.

  • Moral damages may be awarded if there is a clear injury sustained by the claimant, a culpable act or omission by the defendant, proximate causation, and if the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code are present.

  • Moral damages may only be recoverable in instances of fraud, bad faith, or death of a passenger in a breach of contract of carriage.

  • Exemplary damages are only awarded when the act of the offender is accompanied by bad faith or is done in a wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent manner.

  • The claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages before being entitled to exemplary damages.

  • Attorney's fees are not awarded if the awards for moral and exemplary damages are eliminated.

  • Nominal damages are awarded to vindicate or recognize the violated right of the plaintiff, not to indemnify him for any loss suffered.