38 Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
38 Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
38 Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
398
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
ugly stares and the 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 embarassment, insults and humiliations to
which plaintiffs were exposed by the conduct of the airline’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.
Commercial law; Common carriers; Duties of carriers to their
passengers.—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 travelling 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.
Same; Same; Rights of passengers aboard a carrier.—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
give the latter an action for damages against the carrier.
Civil law; Damages; Factors to consider in assessing moral damages.
—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.
Same; Same; Awards for moral damages reduced where plaintiff
contributed to gravity of defendant’s reaction.—To some extent, however,
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 the airline’s agents
399
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
401
“(1) Plaintiffs were on their way to the plane in order to board it, but
defendant’s employ ees—Kenneth Sitton, defendant’s airport manager,
according to plaintiffs; Way ne Pendleton, defendant’s airport customer
service supervisor, according to defendant—stopped them at the gate. This
is what the report of Way ne Pendleton, the airport customer service
supervisor, says:
“ ‘. . . I made no comment to the passenger but turned and led the group toward the
ramp. Just as we reached the boarding gate, Mr. Zulueta spoke to me for the first
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
time saying, ‘You people almost made me miss y our flight. You have a defective
announcing sy stem and I was not paged.’
“ ‘I was about to make some reply when I noticed the captain of the flight
standing on the ramp, midway between the gate and the aircraft, and talking with the
senior maintenance supervisor and several other persons. The captain motioned for
me to join him which I did, indicating to the Zulueta family that they should wait for
a moment at the gate.’
—Exh. 5
402
“ ‘Mr. Zulueta:
Passenger aboard flight 84123
Honolulu/Manila
Sir:
We are forced to offload y ou from flight 84123 due to the fact that you have refused
to open y our checked baggage for Inspection as requested.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
During your stay on Wake Island, which will be for a minimum of one week, you
will be charged $13.30 per day for each member of your party.
K. Sitton
Airport Manager, Wake Island
Pan American World Airway s, Inc.’
—Exh. D.
“(6) All this happened in plain view and within earshot of the other
passengers on the plane, many of whom were Filipinos who knew plaintiffs;
“The departure of the plane was delayed for about two hours.
“(7) Though originally all three plaintiffs had been off loaded, plaintiff
requested that his wife and daughter be permitted to continue with
the flight. This was allowed but they were required to leave the
three bags behind. Nevertheless, the plane did fly with the
plaintiff’s fourth bag; it was found among all other passengers’
luggage flown to Manila upon the plane’s arrival here.
“(8) Upon arrival at Manila, Mrs. Zulueta demanded of defendant’s
Manila office that it re-route plaintiff Rafael Zulueta to Manila at
the earliest possible time, by the fastest route, and at its expense;
defendant refused; so plaintiffs were forced to pay for his ticket and
to send him money as he was without funds.
“(9) On October 27, 1964, plaintiff Zulueta finally arrived at Manila,
after spending two nights at Wake, going back to Honolulu, and
from Honolulu flying thru Tokyo to Manila.
403
In its brief, PANAM maintains that the trial court erred: (1) “in not
granting defendant additional hearing dates (not a postponement) for
the presentation of its other witnesses”; (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”;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
404
the parties, the hearing was, on June 3, 1966, reset for August 1, 2
and 3, 1966. Plaintiffs rested their case on August 2, 1966, wh
ereupon it was agreed that PANAM’s witnesses would be presented
“at a later date,” months later, because they would “come from far-
flung places like Wake Island, San Francisco, Seattle and it will take
time to arrange for their coming here.” Accordingly the case was
reset for October 17, 18 and 19, 1966, at 8:30 a.m. On motion of the
plaintiffs, the trial scheduled for October 17 was cancelled, without
any objection on the part of PANAM; but, to offset said action,
additional hearings were set for October 18 and 19, in the afternoon,
apart from those originally set in the morn ing of these dates. Before
the presentation of PANAM’s evidence, in the morning of October
18, 1966, plaintiffs’ counsel asked for the names of the former’s
witnesses, so that those not on the witness stand could be excluded
from the courtroom. PANAM’s counsel announced that his
witnesses were Marshall Stanley Ho, Kenneth Sitton, Michael
Thomas, W ayne S. Pendleton, Capt. Robert Zentner and Miss Carol
Schmitz.
The defense then proceeded to introduce the testimony of said
witnesses, and consumed therefor the morning and afternoon of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
405
Schley or Sue Welby would narrate the sympathy with which Mrs.
Zulueta was allegedly treated during the flight from Wake Island to
Manila, which is not particularly relevant or material in the case at
bar; (4) that Herman Jaffe, Gerry Cowles and Nilo de Guia were,
also, expected to corroborate the testimony of Capt.
_______________
406
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
407
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
he said it revealed his feeling of distress at the thought that the plane
4
could have left without him.
The second, third and fourth assignments of error are thus clearly
untenable.
In connection with the fifth assignment of error, PANAM’s
witness, Captain Zentner, testified that, while he was outside the
plane, waiting for the result of the search, a “man” approached him
and expressed concern over the situation; that the “man” said he was
with the State Department; that he, his wife and their children, who
were on board the aircraft, would not want to continue the flight
unless the missing person was found; that the “man” expressed fear
of a “bomb,” a word he used reluctantly, because he knew it is
violative of a Federal law when said at the wrong time; that when
plaintiff came, Zentner asked him: “why did you not want to get on
the airplane? ”; that plaintiff then became “very angry” and spoke to
him “in a way I have not been spoken to in my whole adult life”;
that the witness explained: “I am Captain of the aircraft and it is my
duty to see to the flight’s safety”; that he (Zentner) then told Wayne
Pendleton—PANAM’s Customer Service Supervisor—to get
plaintiff’s “bags off the plane to verify x x x about the bomb”; that
PANAM’s airport manager (K. Sitton) “got three bags of Mr.
Zulueta”; that his fourth bag could not be located despite a thorough
search; that believing that it must have been left behind in Honolulu,
“we took off”; and that he (Zentner) would not have done so had he
thought it was still aboard.
The lower court did not err in giving no credence to this
testimony.
Indeed, Captain Zentner did not explain why he seemingly
assumed that the alleged apprehension of his informant was justified.
He did not ask the latter whether he knew anything in particular
about plaintiff herein, although some members of the crew would
appear to have a notion that plaintiff is an impresario. Plaintiff
himself intimated to them that he was well known to the U.S. State
_______________
4 According to Wayne Pendleton, plaintiff said: “you people almost made me miss
my flight. I was not called.”
409
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
410
Zulueta and his locked luggage in Wake was mine and mine alone.’ (Exh.
9). Defendant’s airport customer service supervisor, W.S. Pendleton,
reported that:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
“ ‘After the search for Mr. Zulueta had continued for almost 20 minutes and it was
apparent that he was not to be found in the terminal building or immediate vicinity, I
proceeded to the parking lot and picked up my jeep to continue the search in more
remote areas. Just as I was getting underway, a small group of persons approached
from the direction of the beach and a voice called out that the passenger had been
found. Having parked the jeep again, I walked toward the group and was met by
PAA fleet-serviceman E. Gavino who was walking somewhat ahead of the others,
Mr. Gavino remarked to me privately that the trouble seemed to have stemmed from
some domestic difference between the passenger and his wife who was not at his
side and returning with him to the gate.
“ ‘On hearing Mr. Gavino’s remark, I made no comment to the passenger but
turned and led the group toward the ramp. Just as we reached the boarding gate, Mr.
Zulueta spoke to me for the first time saying, ‘You people almost made me miss your
flight. You have a defective announcing system and I was not paged.’
—Exh. 5.
“Evidently, these could not have been the words of a man who refused to
board the plane.
“(3) There was no legal or phy sical impossibility for defendant to
transport plaintiff Zulueta from Wake to Manila, as it had contracted to do.
Defendant claims that the safety of its craft and of the other passengers
demanded that it inspect Zulueta’s luggage and when he refused to allow
inspection that it had no recourse but to leave him behind. The truth is that,
knowing that of plaintiff’s four pieces of luggage, one could still have been
—as it was—aboard, defendant’s plane still flew on to Manila. Surely, if the
defendant’s pilot and employees really believed that Zulueta had planted a
bomb in one of the bags they would not have flown on until they had made
sure that the fourth bag had been left behind at Honolulu or until enough
time had lapsed for the bomb to have been exploded, since presumably it
had to have been set to go off before they reached Manila.
“At any rate, it was quite evident that Zulueta had nothing to hide; for
the report of defendant’s witness, Mr. Stanley L. E. Ho, U.S. Marshall on
Wake, has this to say:
411
“ ‘About twenty minutes later while an attempt was being made to locate another
piece of Mr. Zulueta’s luggage, his daughter, Carolinda approached her father and
wanted to get some clothes from one of the suitcases. Mr. Zulueta asked the
undersigned if it was alright if he opened the suitcases and get the necessary clothes.
To this I stated he was free to open his luggage and obtain whatever he needed. Mr.
Zulueta opened a suitcase and took the dress for her then boarded the aircraft.’
—Exh. 2B.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
“ ‘Q.—When you saw your wife and daughter what happened? A.—Then I started
going towards the airplane. At the ramp, I do not know what they call it, as soon as
they arrived there, there was a man who subsequently identified himself as Kenneth
Sitton. He identified himself as the Airport Manager of Wake Island. He did not ask
me what happened, was I sick, he looked at me and said, what in the hell do y ou
think you are? Get on that plane. Then I said, what right have you to talk to me that
way, I am a paying passenger. Do not treat me this. And this started the altercation,
and then he said, do you know y ou held up the plane? And I answered, this is not
my fault, I was sick. Did it not occur to y ou to ask me how I feel; then he said get on
that plane.
“ ‘Q.—What happened? A.—we started discussing kept saying, ‘You get on that
plane’ and then I said, ‘I don’t have to get on that plane.’ After a prolonged
discussion, he said, give me y our baggage tags and I gave him four baggage tickets
or tags. I did not realize what he was up to until finally, I saw people coming down
the airplane and police cars arrived and people were coming down the ramp. I gave
him the four baggage tags and a few minutes late, he brought three baggages and
said, open them up. I said, to begin with, there is one baggage missing and that
missing bag is my bag. Then I said you cannot make me open these baggages unless
you are United States customs authorities and when I arrive in the Philippines they
can be opened by the Philippine Customs authorities. But an Airport Manager cannot
make me open my bags
412
unless you do exactly the same thing to all the passengers. Open the bags of
all the other passengers and I will open my bag.
“ ‘Q.—What did he say: A.—He just kept on saying, open y our bag, and I drew up
my hands and said, if you want, y ou open y ourself or give me a search warrant and
I shall open this bag but give me a search warrant and then I asked, who is the Chief
of Police, and he said, ‘I am the Chief of Police,’ then I said how can you be the
Chief of Police and Airport Manager and then he started to talk about double
compensation and by this time we were both quarreling and he was shouting and so
with me. Then there was a man who came around and said ‘open the bag’ and I said,
show the warrant of arrest and do all the checking and the discussion kept on going,
and finally, I said, look, my fourth bag is missing and he said, ‘I don’t give a damn.’
People at the time were surrounding us and staring at us and also the passengers. My
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
wife and daughter all along had been made to sit on a railing and this man screaming
and looking at my wife and daughter. Then he said, will you pull these three
monkeys out of here? And then I said, will you send my wife and daughter up to the
plane which he did. However, they have come down in their slippers and when they
were allowed to return to the plane none of the defendant’s personnel who had
brought down the overcoats, shoes and handcarried items of my wife and daughter
ever offered to bring back these items to the plane, until I demanded that one of the
defendants should help my wife and daughter which he did. And then one man told
me, because you refused to open your bag, ‘we shall hold y ou here in Wake Island.’
And then I asked, are we under arrest? and the man answered, no. And further stated,
your wife and daughter can continue their flight but you will not go to this flight and
we will charge y ou $13.30 a day. Then I said, who are you to tell all these things,
and he answered, I am the manager. I said, put it in writing, then left and in a few
minutes he came back and handed me this letter (witness referring to Exhibit D).’
—t.s.n., August l, 1966, pp. 15-21.
413
“(a) Defendant did not make any attempt to inquire from any
passenger or even the crew who knew Mr. Zulueta what his
character and reputation are, before demanding that he open
the bags; if it had done so, Miss Schmitz, the purser, and
Col. Villamor would have vouched for plaintiffs; for Miss
Schmitz believed she had flown before with the Zuluetas
and they had been very nice people.
“(b) Worse, defendant’s manager Sitton admits that Zulueta had
told him who he was and his social position in Manila; still
he insisted that the bags be opened. Moreover, some
passengers had informed the supervisor that Zulueta was
‘the impresario’; but they persisted in their demands.
“(c) Defendant never identified the alleged State Department
men who reportedly approached the Captain and expressed
fear about a bomb, nor did they confront him—if he existed
—with Mr. Zulueta despite Mr. Zulueta’s request.
“(d) Defendant did not take any steps to put the luggage off-
loaded far from its passengers and plane, a strange
procedure if it really believed the luggage contained a
bomb;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
414
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
“ ‘Ten minutes later, Mr. Zulueta asked if he could talk to his wife who was aboard
the aircraft. I then accompanied him and as we got to the ramp, we met Mr. Sitton
who stated he would summon Mrs. Zulueta from the aircraft. Mr. Sitton summoned
Mrs. Zulueta and she met her husband at the foot of the ramp. Mr. Zulueta then
asked his wife and himself to which I replied I was not concerned what he had to
say.’
—Exh. 2-B.
415
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
_______________
416
own witness and employee, Wayne Pendleton, testified that the plane
could not take off at 4:30, as scheduled, because “we were still
waiting for two (2) local passengers.”
Article 2201 of our Civil Code reads:
“In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.
“In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall
be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation.”
“ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of the former’s employ ees,
although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their
authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
“This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that
they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of their employees.”
“ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.”
“ART. 2217. Moral damages include phy sical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate
result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.”
“ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate liquidated or compensatory damages.”
417
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
“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
7
or insult by himself or his servants.”
_______________
418
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
_______________
8 Air France v. Carrascoso, et al., L-21438, September 28, 1966. See also, 15 ALR
2d 136, Sec. 14, cited in 14 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 481.
9 15 ALR 2nd 133, Sec. 13, cited in 14 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 481.
10 Cave v. Seaboard Airline R. Co., 77 S.E. 1017; See, also: Louisville, N.O. &
T.R. Co. v. Patterson, 13 So. 697.
11 15 ALR 2nd 136.
419
________________
420
None of the passengers invo lved in said cases was, however, off-
loaded, much less in a place as barren and isolated as Wake Island,
with the prospect of being stranded there for a week. The
aforementioned passengers were merely constrained to take a tourist
or third class accommodation in lieu of the first class passage they
were entitled to. Then, also, in none of said cases had the agents of
the carrier acted with the degree of malice or bad faith of those of
PANAM in the case at bar, or caused to the offended passengers a
mental suffering arising from injuries to feelings, fright and shock
due to abusive, rude and insulting language used by the carrier’s
employees in the presence and within the hearing of others,
comparable to that caused by PANAM’s employees to plaintiffs
herein.
To some extent, however, 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. Just the same, there is every reason to
believe that, in all probability, things would not have turned out as
bad as they became had he not allowed himself, in a way, to be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
421
living separately from her husband, plaintiff Rafael Zulueta, and that
she had decided to settle separately with PANAM and had reached a
full and complete settlement of all her differences with said
defendant, and praying, accordingly, that this case be dismissed
insofar as she is concerned. Required to comment on said motion,
PANAM expressed no objection thereto.
Upon the other hand, plaintiff prayed that the motion be denied,
upon the gr ound that the case at bar is one for damages for breach
of a contract of carriage, owing to the off-loading of plaintiff Rafael
Zulueta, the husband and administrator of the conjugal partnership,
with the funds of which the PANAM had been paid under said
contract; that the action was filed by the plaintiffs as a family and the
lower court had awarded damages to them as such family; that,
although PANAM had questioned the award of damages, it had not
raised the question whether the lower court should have specified
what portion of the award should go to each plaintiff; that although
Mr. and Mrs. Zulueta had, for sometime, been living separately, this
has been without judicial approval; that Mrs. Zulueta may not,
therefore, bind the conjugal partnership or settle this case separately;
and that the sum given by PANAM to Mrs. Zulueta is believed to be
P50,000, which is less than 3-1/2% of the award appealed from,
thereby indicating the advisability of denying her motion to dismiss,
for her own protection.
Pursuant to a resolution, dated June 10, 1971, deferring action on
said motion to dismiss until the case is considered on the merits. We
now hold that the motion should be, as it is hereby denied. Indeed,
“(t)he wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership 16
without the
husband’s consent, except in cases provided by law,” and it has not
been shown that this is one of the cases so prov ided. Article 113 of
our Civil Code, pursuant to which “(t)he husband must be joined in
all suits by or against the wife, except: x x x (2) If they have in fact
been separated for at least one year x x x”—relied upon by PANAM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/24
1/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 043
________________
422
plated in subdivision (2) of said Article 113 is one in which the wife
is the real party—either plaintiff or defendant—in interest, and, in
which, without being so, the husband must be joined as a party, by
reason only of his relation of affinity with her. Said provision cannot
possibly apply to a case, like the one at bar, in which the husband is
the main party in interest, both as the person principally aggrieved
and as administrator of the conjugal partnership. Moreover, he
having acted in this capacity in entering into the contract of carriage
with PANAM and paid the amount due to the latter, under the
contract, with funds of the conjugal partnership, the damages
recoverable for breach of such contract belongs to said partnership.
Modified, as above stated, in the sense that plaintiffs shall
recover from defendant, Pan American World Airways, Inc., the
sums of P500,000 as moral damages, P200,000 as exemplary
damages, and P75,000 as attorney’s fees, apart fro m P5,502.85 as
actual damages, and without prejudice to deducting the
aforementioned sum of P50,000 already paid to Mrs. Zulueta, the
decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with
the costs against said defendant.
Decision affirmed.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001689c56abc93b079554003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24