I.

Name of the Case: A CASE STUDY ON BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

II. Citation including year of decision:

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > December 2003 Decisions >
G.R. No. 142305 December 10, 2003 - SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED v. ANDION
FERNANDEZ

III. Facts of the case:

● The Respondent Andion Fernandez is a commendable soprano here in the Philippines
and abroad. When the incident happened, she was one of the beneficiaries of an
educational grant from the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuing a Master’s Degree in
Music majoring in Voice.
On February 3 and 4, 1991, The Respondent was invited to sing before the King
and Queen of Malaysia . For this singing engagement, an airline passage ticket
was purchased from petitioner Singapore Airlines which would carry her to Manila
from Frankfurt, Germany on January 28, 1991. From Manila, the Respondent would
proceed to Malaysia on the following day. It was important for the Respondent to pass
by Manila in order to get her wardrobe; and to practice and coordinate with her
pianist her repertoire for the performance.

The Petitioner issued the respondent a Singapore Airlines ticket for Flight No. SQ 27,
leaving Frankfurt, Germany on January 27, 1991 bound for Singapore with a connecting
flight from Singapore to Manila. Flight No. SQ 27 was scheduled to leave Frankfurt at
1:45 in the afternoon of January 27, 1991, and arrive at Singapore at 8:50 AM of
January 28, 1991. The connecting flight from Singapore to Manila, Flight No. SQ 72, was
leaving Singapore at 11:00 AM of January 28, 1991, arriving in Manila at 2:20 PM of the
same day.
On January 27, 1991, Flight No. SQ 27 left Frankfurt but arrived in Singapore two hours
late or at about 11:00 AM of January 28, 1991. By then, the aircraft bound for Manila had
left as scheduled, leaving the respondent and about 25 other passengers stranded in the
Changi Airport in Singapore.

IV. History:
a. Case of the Respondent
On January 27, 1991, Flight No. SQ 27 left Frankfurt but arrived in Singapore two hours
late or at about 11:00 AM of January 28, 1991. By then, the aircraft bound for Manila had
left as scheduled, leaving the respondent and about 25 other passengers stranded in the
Changi Airport in Singapore. Upon disembarkation at Singapore, the respondent
approached the transit counter who referred her to the nightstop counter and told the
lady employee thereat that it was important for her to reach Manila on that day, January
28, 1991. The lady employee told her that there were no more flights to Manila for that
day and that the respondent had no choice but to stay in Singapore. Upon respondent’s
persistence, she was told that she can actually fly to Hong Kong going to Manila
but since her ticket was non-transferable, she would have to pay for the ticket.
The respondent could not accept the offer because she had no money to pay for it.
Her pleas for the respondent to make arrangements to transport her to Manila were
unheeded. The respondent then requested the lady employee to use their phone to
make a call to Manila. Over the employees’ reluctance, the respondent telephoned her
mother to inform the latter that she missed the connecting flight. The respondent was
able to contact a family friend who picked her up from the airport for her overnight stay in
Singapore.

The next day, after being brought back to the airport, the respondent proceeded to the
petitioner's counter which says: "Immediate Attention to Passengers with Immediate
Booking." There were four or five passengers in line. The respondent approached the
petitioner's male employee at the counter to make arrangements for immediate booking
only to be told: "Can’t you see I am doing something." She explained her predicament
but the male employee uncaringly retorted: "It’s your problem, not ours."

b. Appeal of the Petitioner

On June 10, 1998, the CA promulgated the assailed decision finding no reversible error in
the appealed decision of the trial court.
Forthwith, the petitioner filed the instant petition for review, raising the following errors:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING INTO TO THE

DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT AWARDED DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT
FOR THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO EXERCISE
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

PETITIONER ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE

PETITIONER’S COUNTERCLAIMS.

The petitioner assails the award of damages contending that it exercised the
extraordinary diligence required by law under the given circumstances.
The delay of Flight No. SQ 27 from Frankfurt to Singapore on
January 28, 1991 for more than two hours was due to a fortuitous event and
beyond the petitioner's control. Inclement weather prevented the petitioner’s plane coming
from Copenhagen,Denmark to arrive in Frankfurt on time on January 27, 1991.
The plane could not take off from the airport as the place was shrouded with fog.
This delay caused a "snowball effect" whereby the other flights were consequently
delayed. The plane carrying the respondent arrived in Singapore two (2) hours behind
schedule. The delay was even compounded when the plane could not travel
the normal route which was through the Middle East due to the raging Gulf War at
that time. It had to pass through the restricted Russian airspace which was more
congested.

Under these circumstances, petitioner therefore alleged that it cannot be faulted

for the delay in arriving in Singapore on January 28, 1991 and causing the
respondent to miss her connecting flight to Manila.

The petitioner further contends that it could not also be held in bad faith because its
personnel did their best to look after the needs and interests of the passengers
including the Respondent. Because the respondent and the other 25 passengers
missed their connecting flight to Manila, the petitioner automatically booked them
to the flight the next day and gave them free hotel accommodations for the night.
It was respondent who did not take petitioner’s offer and opted to stay with a family
friend in Singapore.
The petitioner also alleges that the action of the respondent was baseless and it
 tarnished its good name and image earned through the years for which, it was
entitled to damages in the amount of P1,000,000; exemplary damages of
P500,000; and attorney’s fees also in the amount of P500,000.

V. Issue:
a. What is a Contract of Carriage?
● A contract of carriage is a contract between a carrier of goods or passengers and the
consignor, consignee, or passenger. This document is used to define the rights, duties,
and liabilities of parties to the contract. Contracts of carriage typically define the
liabilities, duties, and rights of parties to the contract, addressing topics such as acts of
God and including clauses such as force majeure.

b. Do you agree the Singapore Airlines breached the contract of carriage with the
respondent?
● Yes, because when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a
particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then
has every right to expect that he will be transported on that flight and on that date. If he
does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract of carriage. As we
can see, the Singapore Airlines clearly did not do its best to solve the problem of the
respondent. Since the petitioner did not transport the respondent as covenanted by it on
said terms, the petitioner clearly breached its contract of carriage with the Respondent.
The respondent had every right to sue the petitioner for this breach.

c. Was SQ right in their point that they practiced extraordinary diligence that is why the
plane from Frankfurt to Singapore was delayed? Why?
● No, because if the cause of non-fulfillment of the contract is due to a fortuitous event, it
has to be the sole and only cause (Art. 1755 C.C., Art. 1733 C.C.). Since part of
the failure to comply with the obligation of common carrier to deliver its passengers
safely to their destination lay in the defendant’s failure to provide comfort and
convenience to its stranded passengers using extraordinary diligence, the cause of non-
fulfillment is not solely and exclusively due to fortuitous event, but due to
something which defendant airline could have prevented, defendant becomes liable to
 plaintiff." Indeed, in the instant case, petitioner was not without recourse to enable
it to fulfill its obligation to transport the respondent safely as scheduled as far as
human care and foresight can provide to her destination. Tagged as a premiere
airline as it claims to be and with the complexities of air travel, it was certainly well-
equipped to be able to foresee and deal with such situation. The petitioner’s
Indifference and negligence by its absence and insensitivity was exposed by the trial
Court.
Petitioner airlines could have carried her on one of its flights bound for Hongkong
and arranged for a connecting flight from Hongkong to Manila all on the same date.
But then the airline personnel who informed her of such possibility told her that
she has to pay for that flight. Regrettably, respondent did not have sufficient funds to
pay for it. Knowing the predicament of the respondent, petitioner did not offer to
shoulder the cost of the ticket for that flight; or As noted by the trial court from the
account of petitioner’s witness, Bob Khkimyong, that "a passenger such as the plaint
iff could have been accommodated in another international airline such as Lufthansa
to bring the plaintiff to Singapore early enough from Frankfurt provided that there was prior
communication from that station to enable her to catch the connecting flight to Manila
because of the urgency of her business in Manila . . . (RTC Decision, p. 23)
The petitioner’s diligence in communicating to its passengers the consequences of the
delay in their flights was wanting. As elucidated by the trial court:

d. Did SQ acted in bad faith over the respondent? If no, why? If yes, cite the situation
wherein bad faith was acted upon.
● The respondent then requested the lady employee to use their phone to make a call to
Manila. Over the employees’ reluctance, the respondent telephoned her mother to inform
the latter that she missed the connecting flight. The respondent was able to contact a
family friend who picked her up from the airport for her overnight stay in Singapore.

● The next day, after being brought back to the airport, the respondent proceeded to
petitioner’s counter which says: "Immediate Attention to Passengers with Immediate
Booking." There were four or five passengers in line. The respondent approached
petitioner’s male employee at the counter to make arrangements for immediate booking
only to be told: "Can’t you see I am doing something." She explained her predicament
 but the male employee uncaringly retorted: "It’s your problem, not ours."

e. If you were the SQ counter staff during that time, what actions you should have
done about the case of the respondent?
● If I were the staff at the SQ counter during that time, I would lend the phone to
Respondent so that she can update her family and friends on what’s happening to her
or the situation she is currently in so that they can provide an immediate solution to
the problem. Also I will not be rude to the Respondent, I will listen to her situation
with empathy and think of a solution to help her. I will help her to be accommodated in
another international airline to bring the Respondent to Singapore early enough from
Frankfurt provided that there was prior communication from that station to enable her to
catch the connecting flight to Manila because of the urgency of her business in Manila .

VI. Ruling and Court’s Reasoning:

a. Ruling: Answer the issue with the Yes or No. Give the awarded damages to the one who
won the case .
● ACCORDINGLY and as prayed for, defendant Singapore Airlines is ordered to pay
herein plaintiff Andion H. Fernandez the sum of:

1. FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as compensatory or actual damages;

2. TWO HUNDRED and FIFTY THOUSAND (P250,000.00) PESOS as moral damag

es considering plaintiff’s professional standing in the field of culture at home and abroad;

3. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages;

4. SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS as attorney’s fees; and

5. To pay the costs of suit.

b. Rule of Law: What is the rule of law applied by the court for its decision? Ex. Rule on the
contract of carriage, why?
 ● Rule on the contract of carriage, The petitioner did not transport the respondent as
covenanted by it on said terms, the petitioner clearly breached its contract of carriage
with the Respondent. The respondent had every right to sue the petitioner for this
breach.

c. Discuss the court’s reasoning and explain how it arrived at its ruling.
● When a passenger contracts for a specific flight, he has a purpose in making that choice which
must be respected. This choice, once exercised, must not be impaired by a breach on
the part of the airline without the latter incurring any liability. For petitioner’s failure to bring
the respondent to her destination, as scheduled, the court find the petitioner clearly liable for the
breach of its contract of carriage with the Respondent.
The court is convinced that the petitioner acted in bad faith. Bad faith means a breach of
known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. Self -enrichment or fraternal interest, and
not personal ill will, may well have been the motive; but it is malice nevertheless.
Bad faith was imputed by the trial court when it found that the petitioner’s employees at the
Singapore airport did not accord the respondent the attention and treatment allegedly
warranted under the circumstances. The lady employee at the counter was unkind and
of no help to her. The respondent further alleged that without her threats of suing
the company, she was not allowed to use the company’s phone to make long distance calls to
her mother in Manila. The male employee at the counter where it says: "Immediate Attention
to Passengers with Immediate Booking" was rude to her when he curtly retorted that he was
busy attending to other passengers in line. The trial court concluded that this inattentiveness and
rudeness of the petitioner's personnel to respondent’s plight was gross enough amounting to
bad faith. This is a finding that is generally binding upon the Court which we find no reason to disturb.
Article 2232 of the Civil Code provides that in a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship,
Exemplary damages may be awarded only if the defendant had acted in a "wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner." In this case, petitioner’s employees acted in a
wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. The award of exemplary damages is, therefore,
warranted in this case.

VII. Conclusion:
In my perspective, the court made the right decision to deny the petition of the petitioner
because they clearly breached the contract of carriage. The reason why I agree with the
decision of the court is because; First, the Petitioner airlines could have carried her on one of its
flights bound for Hongkong and arranged for a connecting flight from Hongkong to Manila all
on the same date. But then the airline personnel who informed her of such a possibility
told her that she has to pay for that flight. Regrettably, the respondent did not have sufficient
funds to pay for it. Knowing the predicament of the respondent, petitioner did not offer to
shoulder the cost of the ticket for that flight; Second, a passenger such as the plaintiff could
have been accommodated in another international airline such as Lufthansa to bring the plaintiff
to Singapore early enough from Frankfurt provided that there was prior communication from that
station to enable her to catch the connecting flight to Manila because of the urgency of her
business in Manila; Third, the staff that the Respondent asked help for was no use. Those staff
were supposed to help her with her problem and should have listened to her valid reasons, but
instead, the staff acted in bad faith and were rude to her. They did not even bother to think of
alternative ways to help the Respondent with her situation.
It maybe that delay in the take off and arrival of commercial aircraft could not be avoided
and may be caused by diverse factors such as those testified to by the defendant's pilot.
However, knowing fully well that even before the plaintiff boarded defendant’s Jumbo
aircraft in Frankfurt bound for Singapore, it has already incurred a delay of two hours.
Nevertheless, defendant did not take the trouble of informing plaintiff, among its other
passengers of such a delay and that in such a case, the usual practice of
defendant airline will be that they have to stay overnight at their connecting airport; and
much less did it inquire from the plaintiff and the other 25 passengers bound for Manila
whether they are amenable to stay overnight in Singapore and to take the connecting
flight to Manila the next day. Such information should have been given and inquiries
made in Frankfurt because even the defendant airline’s manual provides that in case
of urgency to reach his or her destination on the same date, the head office of
defendant in Singapore must be informed by telephone or telefax so as the latter
may make certain arrangements with other airlines in Frankfurt to bring such a
passenger with urgent business to Singapore in such a manner that the latter
can catch up with her connecting flight such as S-27/28 without spending
the night in Singapore.