You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2008-04-22
REYES, R.T., J.
x x x he was haughtily ejected by appellant. He was certainly embarrassed and humiliated when, in the presence of other passengers, the appellant's airline staff shouted at him to stand up and arrogantly asked him to produce his travel papers, without the least courtesy every human being is entitled to.  Then, he was compelled to deplane on the grounds that his papers were fake.  His protestation of having been issued a U.S. visa coupled with his plea to appellant to closely monitor his movements when the aircraft stops over in Narita, were ignored.  Worse, he was made to wait for many hours at the office of appellant only to be told later that he has valid travel documents.[66]  (Underscoring ours) Clearly, JAL is liable for moral damages.  It is firmly settled that moral damages are recoverable in suits predicated on breach of a contract of carriage where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, as in this case.  Inattention to and lack of care for the interests of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an award of moral damages.  What the law considers as bad faith which may furnish the ground for an award of moral damages would be bad faith in securing the contract and in the execution thereof, as well as in the enforcement of its terms, or any other kind of deceit.[67]