RAFAEL and TELLY ZULUETA VS.

PAN-AM
G.R. No. L-28589

FACTS: Spouses Zulueta and and the their daughter were passengers aboard a PANAM plane from
Honolulu to Manila, the first leg of which was Wake Island. The plane landed on said Island, the
passengers were advised that they could disembark for a stopover of about 30 minutes. Shortly before
reaching that place, the flight was, "very rough." Testifying for PANAM, its purser, Miss Schmitz,
asserted, however, that it was "very calm. Mr. Zulueta testified that, having found the need to relieve
himself, he went to the men's comfort room at the terminal building, but found it full of soldiers, in view
of which he walked down the beach some 100 yards away.  The flight was called and when the
passengers had boarded the plane, Mr. Zulueta’s absence was noticed. The take-off was, accordingly,
delayed and a search for him was conducted.  Upon returning, he told an employee of the defendant
that they almost made him miss the flight because of a defective announcing system. He had a
discussion with either the plan captain or the terminal manager.  The defendants asked Zuluetas to
turn over their baggage claim checks. Plaintiffs did so, handing him four (4) claim checks. However, only
three (3) bags were located and segregated from the rest of the passenger's luggage. The items hand
carried by plaintiffs, except for plaintiff's overcoat, were also brought down.  Once three bags had been
identified, and while the search was going on for the fourth bag. Mr. Sitton, defendant's airport
manager, demanded that plaintiffs open the bags (actually, they were closed, but not locked) and allow
defendant's employees to inspect them. Rafael Zulueta refused and warned that defendant could open
the bags only by force and at its peril of a law suit.  Mr. Sitton then told plaintiff that he would not be
allowed to proceed to Manila on board the plane and handed Zulueta a letter. It was stated he was off
loaded because he refused to have his bag inspected and that during his stay on Wake Island, which will
he for a minimum of one week, he will be charged $13.30 per day.  He was left at Wake Island and was
able to return to the Philippines 2 days after. Mr. Zulueta claimed that during his stay in the place, his
wife had to transfer him money for his expenses.  The Zuluetas demanded that PANAM reimburse
them in the sum of P1,505,502.85 for damages; but they refused to do so.

RTC: Ruled in favor of the Zuluetas and awarded them moral and exemplary damages.  Hence, this
petition where PANAM maintains that the trial court erred: (2) "in assuming it to be true that the reason
plaintiff Rafael Zulueta did not come aboard when the passengers were reboarded was that he had gone
to the beach to relieve himself"; (3) "in not holding that the real reason why plaintiff Rafael Zulueta did
not reboard the plane, when the announcement to do so was made, was that he had a quarrel with his
wife and after he was found at the beach and his intention to be left behind at Wake was temporarily
thwarted he did everything calculated to compel Pan American personnel to leave him behind"; 5) "in
not holding that the captain was entitled to an explanation for Zulueta's failure to reboard and not
having received a reasonable explanation and because of Zulueta's irrational behavior and refusal to
have his bags examined the captain had the right and duty to leave Zulueta behind"; (6) "in condemning
the defendant to pay plaintiffs P5,502.85 as actual damages plus the further sum of P1,000.000.00 as
moral damages, and the further sum of P400,000.00 as exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees in the
sum of P100,000.00"; and (7) "in not granting defendant's counterclaim of attorneys' fees and expenses
of litigation.

ISSUE/S I. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to MORAL and EXEMPLARY damages for breach of
contract. – YES
RULING: Plaintiff is entitled to damages. Firstly, plaintiff’s testimony about what he did upon reaching
the beach is uncontradicted. Furthermore, there is absolutely no direct evidence about said alleged
quarrel. If such was true, surely, plaintiff would not have walked back from the beach to the terminal
before the plane had resumed its flight to Manila, thereby exposing his presence to the full view of
those who were looking for him. Anent the request of the common carrier to inspect the bags of
plaintiff, it appears that Captain Zentner received information that one of the passengers expressed a
fear of a bomb on board the plane. As a result, he asked for the plaintiff’s bags to verify the bomb.
Nevertheless, this claim is unfounded. The Captain failed to explain why he seemingly assumed that the
alleged apprehension of his information was justified. Plaintiff himself intimated to them that he was
well known to the US State Department and that the Captain was not even aware of the informant’s
name or any circumstances which may substantiate the latter’s fear of a certain bomb. The records
amply establish plaintiffs' right to recover both moral and exemplary damages. Indeed the rude and
rough reception plaintiff received at the hands of Sitton or Captain Zentner when the latter met him at
the ramp ("what in the hell do you think you are? Get on that plane"); the menacing attitude of Zentner
or Sitton and the supercilious manner in which he had asked plaintiff to open his bags ("open your bag,"
and when told that a fourth bag was missing, "I don't give a damn"); the abusive language and highly
scornful reference to plaintiffs as monkeys by one of PANAM's employees (who turning to Mrs. Zulueta
and Miss Zulueta remarked, "will you pull these three monkeys out of here?"); the unfriendly attitude,
the ugly stares and unkind remarks to which plaintiffs were subjected, and their being cordoned by men
in uniform as if they were criminals; while plaintiff was arguing with Sitton; the airline, officials' refusal
to allow plaintiff to board the plane on the pretext that he was hiding a bomb in his luggage and their
arbitrary and high-handed decision to leave him in Wake; Mrs. Zulueta's having suffered a nervous
breakdown for which she was hospitalized as a result of the embarrassment, insults and humiliations to
which plaintiffs were exposed by the conduct of PANAM's employees; Miss Zulueta's having suffered
shame, humiliation and embarrassment for the treatment received by her parents at the airport - - all
these justify an award for moral damages resulting from mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation thereby suffered by plaintiffs. The relation between carrier
and passenger involves special and peculiar obligations and duties, differing in kind and degree, from
those of almost every other legal or contractual relation. On account of the peculiar situation of the
parties the law implies a promise and imposes upon the carrier the corresponding duty of protection
and courteous treatment. Therefore, the carrier is under the absolute duty of protecting his passengers
from assault or insult by himself or his servants. "A contract to transport passengers is quite different in
kind and degree from any other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation which an air-
carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the traveling public. It invites people to avail
of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation
attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give
ground for an action for damages. "Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a
right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration.
They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and
abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of employees
towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier." "A carrier of passengers
is as much bound to protect them from humiliation and insult as from physical injury. * * * It is held in
nearly all jurisdictions, if not universally, that a carrier is liable to a passenger for humiliation and mental
suffering caused by abusive or insulting language directed at such passenger by an employee of the
carrier." "Where a conductor uses language to a passenger which is calculated to insult, humiliate, or
wound the feelings of a person of ordinary feelings and sensibilities, the carrier is liable, because the
contract of carriage impliedly stipulates for decent, courteous, and respectful treatment at hands of the
carrier's employees." "The general rule that a carrier owes to a passenger the highest degree of care has
been held to include the duty to protect the passenger from abusive language by the carrier's agents, or
by others if under such circumstances that the carrier's agents should have known about it and
prevented it. Some of the courts have mentioned the implied duty of the carrier, arising out of the
contract of carriage, not to insult the passenger, or permit him to be insulted, and even where no
mention is made of this basis for liability, it is apparent that it is the ground upon which recovery is
allowed." It has been held that the discretion in fixing moral damages lies in the trial court. Among the
factors courts take into account in assessing moral damages are the professional, social, political and
financial standing of the offended parties on one hand, and the business and financial position of the
offender on the other. II. The plaintiff had contributed to the gravity of the situation because of the
extreme belligerence with which he had reacted on the occasion. We do not overlook the fact that he
justly believed he should uphold and defend his dignity and that of the people of this country; that the
discomfort, the difficulties, and, perhaps, the ordeal through which he had gone to relieve himself which
were unknown to PANAM's agents were such as to put him in no mood to be understanding of the
shortcomings of others; and that said PANAM agents should have first inquired, with an open mind,
about the cause of his delay, instead of assuming that he was at fault and of taking an arrogant and
overbearing attitude, as if they were dealing with an inferior. This may have justified a reduction of the
damages had plaintiff been unwittingly left by the plane, owing to the negligence of PANAM personnel,
or even, wittingly, if he could not be found before the plane’s departure. It does not, and cannot have
such justification in the case at bar, plaintiff having shown up before the plane had taken off and he
having been off-loaded intentionally and with malice. RULING In view of this circumstance, We feel that
the moral and exemplary damages collectible by the plaintiffs should be reduced to one-half of the
amounts awarded by the lower court, that is, to P500,000 for moral damages, and P200,000 for
exemplary damages, aside from the attorney's fees which should, likewise, be reduced to P75,000.
NOTES  A claIm for moral damages is one not susceptible of pecuniary estimation. In fact, Article 2217
of the Civil Code of the Philippines explicitly provides that "Though incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or
omission." Hence, "No proof pecuniary loss necessary" — pursuant to Article 2216 of the same Code —
"in order that moral ... damages may be adjudicated." And "the assessment of such damages ... is left to
the discretion of the court" - said article adds - "according to the circumstances of each case."