Japan Airlines vs. Simangan, 552 SCRA 341 (2008)
Japan Airlines vs. Simangan, 552 SCRA 341 (2008)
Japan Airlines vs. Simangan, 552 SCRA 341 (2008)
342
342
343
as in this case. Inattention to and lack of care for the interests of its
passengers who are
344
344
345
346
347
348
2 Japan Airlines v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 161730, January 28, 2005, 449
SCRA 544, 548.
349
349
350
350
351
352
353
354
The CA ratiocinated:
While the protection of passengers must take precedence over
convenience, the implementation of security measures must be
attended by basic courtesies.
In fact, breach of the contract of carriage creates against the
carrier a presumption of liability, by a simple proof of injury,
relieving the injured passenger of the duty to establish the fault of
the carrier or of his employees; and placing on the carrier the
burden to prove that it was due to an unforeseen event or to force
majeure.
That appellee possessed bogus travel documents and that he
might stay illegally in Japan are allegations without substantiation.
Also, appellants attempt to rebook appellee the following day was
too late and did not relieve it from liability. The damage had been
done. Besides, its belated theory of novation, i.e., that appellants
original obligation to carry appellee to Narita and Los Angeles on
July 29, 1992 was extinguished by novation when appellant agreed
that appellee will instead take appellants flight to Narita on the
following day, July 30, 1992, deserves little attention. It is
inappropriate at bar. Questions not taken up during the trial cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal.40 (Italics ours and citations
were omitted)
355
356
WAS
NOT
GUILTY
OF
BREACH
OF
CONTRACT.
B.MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED IN
BREACH OF CONTRACT CASES ONLY WHEN THE
BREACH IS ATTENDED BY FRAUD OR BAD FAITH.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT JAL WAS GUILTY OF
BREACH, JAL DID NOT ACT FRAUDULENTLY OR IN BAD
FAITH AS TO ENTITLE RESPONDENT TO MORAL
DAMAGES.
C.THE LAW DISTINGUISHES A CONTRACTUAL
BREACH EFFECTED IN GOOD FAITH FROM ONE
ATTENDED BY BAD FAITH.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
RULING THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES CONSIDERING THAT:
A.EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE
IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE UNLESS THE
CARRIER IS GUILTY OF WANTON, FRAUDULENT,
RECKLESS, OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT CONDUCT.
B.ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT JAL WAS GUILTY
OF BREACH, JAL DID NOT ACT IN A WANTON
FRAUDULENT,
RECKLESS,
OPPRESSIVE
OR
MALEVOLENT MANNER AS TO ENTITLE RESPONDENT
TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
III.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED
TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT
OF APPEALS AWARD OF P750,000 IN DAMAGES WAS
EXCESSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED.
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
FINDING FOR JAL ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM.44 (Italics Ours)
_______________
44 Id., at pp. 2324.
357
357
Our Ruling
This Court is not a trier of facts.
Chiefly, the issues are factual. The RTC findings of facts
were affirmed by the CA. The CA also gave its nod to the
reasoning of the RTC except as to the awards of damages,
which were reduced, and that of attorneys fees, which was
deleted.
We are not a trier of facts. We generally rely upon, and
are bound by, the conclusions on this matter of the lower
courts, which are better equipped and have better
opportunity to assess the evidence firsthand, including the
testimony of the witnesses.45
We have repeatedly held that the findings of fact of the
CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on
appeal to the Supreme Court provided they are based on
substantial evidence.46 We have no jurisdiction, as a rule, to
reverse their findings.47 Among the exceptions to this rule
are: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely
on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (c) where there is grave
_______________
45 Malaysian Airline System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L78015,
December 11, 1987, 156 SCRA 321, 323.
46 Id., citing AlsuaBetts v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L4643031,
July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 332.
47 Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L61418,
September 24, 1987, 154 SCRA 211, 213, citing Tongoy v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L45645, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 99; Olango v. Court
of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, G.R. No. L55864, March 28, 1983,
121 SCRA 338.
358
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
366
367
368
Midland
Courier
v.
Court
of Appeals,
G.R.
No.
369
370