Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cervantes Vs CA
Cervantes Vs CA
March 2, 1999] arrived at by the trial court are entitled to great weight
on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong
NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF and cogent reasons.[4]
APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., respondent.
DECISION The facts of the case as found by the lower court[5] are,
PURISIMA, J.: as follows:
This Petition for Review on certiorari assails the 25 July 1995 The plane ticket itself (Exhibit A for plaintiff; Exhibit 1 for
decision of the Court of Appeals[1] in CA GR CV No. defendant) provides that it is not valid after March 27,
41407, entitled Nicholas Y. Cervantes vs. Philippine Air 1990. (Exhibit 1-F). It is also stipulated in paragraph 8 of
Lines Inc., affirming in toto the judgment of the trial court the Conditions of Contract (Exhibit 1, page 2) as follows:
dismissing petitioners complaint for damages.
"8. This ticket is good for carriage for one year from date
On March 27, 1989, the private respondent, Philippines Air of issue, except as otherwise provided in this ticket, in
Lines, Inc. (PAL), issued to the herein petitioner, Nicholas carriers tariffs, conditions of carriage, or related
Cervantes (Cervantes), a round trip plane ticket for regulations. The fare for carriage hereunder is subject to
Manila-Honolulu-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Manila, which change prior to commencement of carriage. Carrier
ticket expressly provided an expiry of date of one year may refuse transportation if the applicable fare has not
from issuance, i.e., until March 27, 1990. The issuance of been paid.[6]
the said plane ticket was in compliance with a
Compromise Agreement entered into between the The question on the validity of subject ticket can be
contending parties in two previous suits, docketed as Civil resolved in light of the ruling in the case of Lufthansa vs.
Case Nos. 3392 and 3451 before the Regional Trial Court Court of Appeals[7]. In the said case, the Tolentinos were
in Surigao City.[2] issued first class tickets on April 3, 1982, which will be valid
until April 10,1983. On June 10, 1982, they changed their
On March 23, 1990, four days before the expiry date of accommodations to economy class but the replacement
subject ticket, the petitioner used it. Upon his arrival in Los tickets still contained the same restriction. On May 7,
Angeles on the same day, he immediately booked his Los 1983, Tolentino requested that subject tickets be
Angeles-Manila return ticket with the PAL office, and it extended, which request was refused by the petitioner on
was confirmed for the April 2, 1990 flight. the ground that the said tickets had already expired. The
non-extension of their tickets prompted the Tolentinos to
Upon learning that the same PAL plane would make a bring a complaint for breach of contract of carriage
stop-over in San Francisco, and considering that he against the petitioner. In ruling against the award of
would be there on April 2, 1990, petitioner made damages, the Court held that the ticket constitute the
arrangements with PAL for him to board the flight in San contract between the parties. It is axiomatic that when
Francisco instead of boarding in Los Angeles. the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the
intention of the contracting parties, contracts are to be
On April 2, 1990, when the petitioner checked in at the interpreted according to their literal meaning.
PAL counter in San Francisco, he was not allowed to
board. The PAL personnel concerned marked the In his effort to evade this inevitable conclusion, petitioner
following notation on his ticket: TICKET NOT ACCEPTED theorized that the confirmation by the PALs agents in Los
DUE EXPIRATION OF VALIDITY. Angeles and San Francisco changed the compromise
agreement between the parties.
Aggrieved, petitioner Cervantes filed a Complaint for
Damages, for breach of contract of carriage docketed As aptly ruled by the appellate court:
as Civil Case No. 3807 before Branch 32 of the Regional
Trial Court of Surigao del Norte in Surigao City. But the xxx on March 23, 1990, he was aware of the risk that his
said complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.[3] ticket could expire, as it did, before he returned to the
Philippines. (pp. 320-321, Original Records)[8]
On September 20, 1993, petitioner interposed an appeal
to the Court of Appeals, which came out with a Decision, The question is: Did these two (2) employees, in effect ,
on July 25, 1995, upholding the dismissal of the case. extend the validity or lifetime of the ticket in question?
The answer is in the negative. Both had no authority to do
On May 22, 1996, petitioner came to this Court via the so. Appellant knew this from the very start when he called
Petition for Review under consideration. up the Legal Department of appellee in the Philippines
before he left for the United States of America. He had
The issues raised for resolution are: (1) Whether or not the first hand knowledge that the ticket in question would
act of the PAL agents in confirming subject ticket expire on March 27,1990 and that to secure an extension,
extended the period of validity of petitioners ticket; (2) he would have to file a written request for extension at
Whether or not the defense of lack of authority was the PALs office in the Philippines (TSN, Testimony of
correctly ruled upon; and (3) Whether or not the denial of Nicholas Cervantes, August 2, 1991, pp 20-23). Despite
the award for damages was proper. this knowledge, appellant persisted to use the ticket in
question.[9]
To rule on the first issue, there is a need to quote the From the aforestated facts, it can be gleaned that the
findings below. As a rule, conclusions and findings of fact petitioner was fully aware that there was a need to send
1
a letter to the legal counsel of PAL for the extension of issues not alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be
the period of validity of his ticket. rendered validly as regards the said issue, which shall be
treated as if they have been raised in the pleadings.
Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said Agreement There is implied consent to the evidence thus presented
and petitioner knew that a written request to the legal when the adverse party fails to object thereto.[13]
counsel of PAL was necessary, he cannot use what the
PAL agents did to his advantage. The said agents, Re: the third issue, an award of damages is improper
according to the Court of Appeals,[10] acted without because petitioner failed to show that PAL acted in bad
authority when they confirmed the flights of the faith in refusing to allow him to board its plane in San
petitioner. Francisco.
Under Article 1898[11] of the New Civil Code, the acts of In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of
an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately
the principal, unless the latter ratifies the same expressly injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with
or impliedly. Furthermore, when the third person (herein malice or bad faith.[14] Petitioner knew there was a
petitioner) knows that the agent was acting beyond his strong possibility that he could not use the subject ticket,
power or authority, the principal cannot be held liable for so much so that he bought a back-up ticket to ensure his
the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of departure. Should there be a finding of bad faith, we are
such limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled of the opinion that it should be on the petitioner. What
to recover damages from the agent, unless the latter the employees of PAL did was one of simple negligence.
undertook to secure the principals ratification.[12] No injury resulted on the part of petitioner because he
had a back-up ticket should PAL refuse to
Anent the second issue, petitioners stance that the accommodate him with the use of subject ticket.
defense of lack of authority on the part of the PAL
employees was deemed waived under Rule 9, Section 2 Neither can the claim for exemplary damages be
of the Revised Rules of Court, is unsustainable. upheld. Such kind of damages is imposed by way of
Thereunder, failure of a party to put up defenses in their example or correction for the public good, and the
answer or in a motion to dismiss is a waiver thereof. existence of bad faith is established. The wrongful act
must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of
Petitioner stresses that the alleged lack of authority of the damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted
PAL employees was neither raised in the answer nor in the in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent
motion to dismiss. But records show that the question of manner.[15] Here, there is no showing that PAL acted in
whether there was authority on the part of the PAL such a manner. An award for attorneys fees is also
employees was acted upon by the trial court when improper.
Nicholas Cervantes was presented as a witness and the
depositions of the PAL employees, Georgina M. Reyes WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the decision of
and Ruth Villanueva, were presented. the Court of Appeals dated July 25, 1995 AFFIRMED in
toto. No pronouncement as to costs.
The admission by Cervantes that he was told by PALs
legal counsel that he had to submit a letter requesting for SO ORDERED.
an extension of the validity of subject tickets was
tantamount to knowledge on his part that the PAL
employees had no authority to extend the validity of
subject tickets and only PALs legal counsel was
authorized to do so.