-03 japan airlines vs samangan

8/13/2019 -03 Japan Airlines vs Samangan

1/12


2/12

@n &uly +, $+, the date of his flight, respondent "ent to Ninoy '2uino #nternational

'irport in the copany of several relatives and friends.$$He "as allo"ed to check9in at

&')6s counter.$+His plane ticket, boarding pass, travel authority and personal articles

"ere subAected to rigid iigration and security routines.$'fter passing through saidiigration and security procedures, respondent "as allo"ed by &') to enter its

airplane.$=

While inside the airplane, &')6s airline cre" suspected respondent of carrying a falsifiedtravel docuent and iputed that he "ould only use the trip to the 0nited /tates as a

prete!t to stay and "ork in &apan.$>%he ste"ardess asked respondent to sho" his traveldocuents. /hortly after, the ste"ardess along "ith a &apanese and a 8ilipino haughtily

ordered hi to stand up and leave the plane.$7Respondent protested, e!plaining that he"as issued a 0./. visa. &ust to allo" hi to board the plane, he pleaded "ith &') to

closely onitor his oveents "hen the aircraft stops over in Narita. $:His pleas "ere

ignored. He "as then constrained to go out of the plane. $; #n a nutshell, r%'po()%(+9*' 63p%) o// +% /li+.

Respondent "ent to &')6s ground office and "aited there for three hours. 1ean"hile, the

plane took off and he "as left behind.$'fter"ards, he "as infored that his travel

docuents "ere, indeed, in order.+?Respondent "as refunded the cost of his plane

ticket less the su of 0/??.?? "hich "as deducted by &').+$ /ubse2uently,

respondent6s 0./. visa "as cancelled.++

ispleased by the turn of events, respondent filed an action for daages against &')"ith the Regional %rial Court (R%C* in alen5uela City, docketed as Civil Case No. =$>99. He claied he "as not able to donate his kidney to )oretoD and that he suffered

terrible ebarrassent and ental anguish.

+

He prayed that he be a"arded P illionas oral daages, P$.> illion as e!eplary daages and P>??,???.?? as attorney6s

fees.+=

&') denied the aterial allegations of the coplaint. #t argued, aong others, that itsfailure to allo" respondent to fly on his scheduled departure "as due to a need for his

travel docuents to be authenticated by the 0nited /tates Ebassy+>because no one

fro &')6s airport staff had encountered a parole visa before.+7 #t posited that theauthentication re2uired additional tieD that respondent "as advised to take the flight thefollo"ing day, &uly ?, $+. &') alleged that respondent agreed to be rebooked on &uly

?, $+.+:

&') also lodged a counterclai anchored on respondent6s alleged "rongful institution ofthe coplaint. #t prayed for litigation e!penses, e!eplary daages and attorney6s

fees.+;

@n /epteber +$, +???, the R%C presided by &udge 8loro P. 'leAo rendered its decisionin favor of respondent (plaintiff*, disposing as follo"s-

WHERE8@RE, Audgent is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the


3/12

plaintiff the aount of P$,???,???.?? as oral daages, the aount of P>??,???.??as e!eplary daages and the aount of P+>?,???.?? as attorney6s fees, plus the

cost of suit.+

%he R%C e!plained-

#n suarily and insolently ordering the plaintiff to disebark "hile the latter "asalready settled in his assigned seat, the defendant violated the contract of carriageDthat "hen the plaintiff "as ordered out of the plane under the prete!t that thegenuineness of his travel docuents "ould be verified it had caused hiebarrassent and besirched reputationD and that "hen the plaintiff "as finally notallo"ed to take the flight, he suffered ore "ounded feelings and social huiliationfor "hich the plaintiff "as asking to be a"arded oral and e!eplary daages as"ell as attorney6s fees.

%he reason given by the defendant that "hat propted the to investigate thegenuineness of the travel docuents of the plaintiff "as that the plaintiff "as notthen carrying a regular visa but Aust a letter does not appear satisfactory. %he

defendant is engaged in transporting passengers by plane fro country to countryand is therefore conversant "ith the travel docuents. %he defendant should not beallo"ed to pretend, to the preAudice of the plaintiff not to kno" that the traveldocuents of the plaintiff are valid docuents to allo" hi entry in the 0nited /tates.

%he foregoing act of the defendant in ordering the plaintiff to deplane "hile alreadysettled in his assigned seat clearly deonstrated that the defendant breached itscontract of carriage "ith the plaintiff as passenger in bad faith and as such theplaintiff is entitled to oral and e!eplary daages as "ell as to an a"ard of

attorney6s fees.?

isagreeing "ith the R%C Audgent, &') appealed to the C' contending that it is not

guilty of breach of contract of carriage, hence, not liable for daages.$#t posited that it

is the one entitled to recover on its counterclai.+

CA Rli(

#n a ecision dated 1ay $, +??>, the C' affired the decision of the R%C "ithodification in that it lo"ered the aount of oral and e!eplary daages and deletedthe a"ard of attorney6s fees. %he fallo of the C' decision reads-

WHERE8@RE, the appealed ecision is '88#R1E "ith 1@#8#C'%#@N. 'ppellant

&'P'N '#R )#NE/ is ordered to pay appellee &E/0/ /#1'NF'N the reduced sus,as follo"s- 8ive Hundred %housand Pesos (P>??,???.??* as oral daages, and%"o Hundred 8ifty %housand Pesos (P+>?,???.??* as e!eplary daages. %he

a"ard of attorney6s fees is hereby E)E%E.=

%he C' elucidated that since &') issued to respondent a round trip plane ticket for a

la"ful consideration, there arose a perfected contract bet"een the.> #t found that

respondent "as haughtily eAected7by &') and that he "as certainly ebarrassed

and huiliated:"hen, in the presence of other passengers, &')6s airline staff shouted


4/12

at hi to stand up and arrogantly asked hi to produce his travel papers, "ithout the

least courtesy every huan being is entitled toD; and that he "as copelled to

deplane on the grounds that his papers "ere fake.

%he C' ratiocinated-

While the protection of passengers ust take precedence over convenience, theipleentation of security easures ust be attended by basic courtesies.

#n fact, breach of the contract of carriage creates against the carrier a presuption ofliability, by a siple proof of inAury, relieving the inAured passenger of the duty toestablish the fault of the carrier or of his eployeesD and placing on the carrier theburden to prove that it "as due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

%hat appellee possessed bogus travel docuents and that he ight stay illegally in&apan are allegations "ithout substantiation. 'lso, appellant6s attept to rebookappellee the follo"ing day "as too late and did not relieve it fro liability. %hedaage had been done. Besides, its belated theory of novation, i.e., that appellant6soriginal obligation to carry appellee to Narita and )os 'ngeles on &uly +, $+ "ase!tinguished by novation "hen appellant and appellant agreed that appellee "illinstead take appellant6s flight to Narita on the follo"ing day, &uly ?, $+, deserveslittle attention. #t is inappropriate at bar. 4uestions not taken up during the trial cannot

be raised for the first tie on appeal.=? (0nderscoring ours and citations "ereoitted*

Citing Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines,=$the C' declared that (i*n contracts ofcoon carriage, inattention and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in thefailure of the passenger to be accoodated in the class contracted for aounts to badfaith or fraud "hich entitles the passengers to the a"ard of oral daages in accordance

"ith 'rticle +++? of the Civil Code.=+

Nevertheless, the C' odified the daages a"arded by the R%C. #t e!plained-

8undaental in the la" on daages is that one inAured by a breach of a contract, orby a "rongful or negligent act or oission shall have a fair and Aust copensationcoensurate to the loss sustained as conse2uence of the defendant6s act. Beingdiscretionary on the court, the aount, ho"ever, should not be palpably andscandalously e!cessive.

Here, the trial court6s a"ard of P$,???,???.?? as oral daages appears to be

overblo"n. No other proof of appellee6s social standing, profession, financialcapabilities "as presented e!cept that he "as single and a businessan. %o 0s, thesu of >??,???.?? is Aust and fair. 8or, oral daages are ephatically not intendedto enrich a coplainant at the e!pense of the defendant. %hey are a"arded only toenable the inAured party to obtain eans, diversion or auseents that "ill serve toalleviate the oral suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant6sculpable action.

1oreover, the grant of P>??,???.?? as e!eplary daages needs to be reduced toa reasonable level. %he a"ard of e!eplary daages is designed to perit the


5/12

courts to ould behavior that has socially deleterious conse2uences and itsiposition is re2uired by public policy to suppress the "anton acts of the offender.Hence, the su of P+>?,???.?? is ade2uate under the circustances.

%he a"ard of P+>?,???.?? as attorney6s fees lacks factual basis. 'ppellee "asdefinitely copelled to litigate in protecting his rights and in seeking relief froappellant6s isdeeds. Get, the record is devoid of evidence to sho" the cost of the

services of his counsel andor the actual e!penses incurred in prosecuting his

action.=(Citations "ere oitted*

When &')6s otion for reconsideration "as denied, it resorted to the petition at bar.

I''%'

&') poses the follo"ing issues 9

#.

WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ ERRE #N R0)#NF %H'%RE/P@NEN% W'/ EN%#%)E %@ 1@R') '1'FE/, C@N/#ER#NF %H'%-

'. &') W'/ N@% F0#)%G @8 BRE'CH @8 C@N%R'C%.

B. 1@R') '1'FE/ 1'G BE 'W'RE #N BRE'CH @8 C@N%R'C%C'/E/ @N)G WHEN %HE BRE'CH #/ '%%ENE BG 8R'0 @R B'8'#%H. '//01#NFARGUENDO%H'% &') W'/ F0#)%G @8 BRE'CH, &')# N@% 'C% 8R'00)EN%)G @R #N B' 8'#%H '/ %@ EN%#%)ERE/P@NEN% %@ 1@R') '1'FE/.

C. %HE )'W #/%#NF0#/HE/ ' C@N%R'C%0') BRE'CH E88EC%E #NF@@ 8'#%H 8R@1 @NE '%%ENE BG B' 8'#%H.

##.

WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ ERRE #N R0)#NF %H'%RE/P@NEN% W'/ EN%#%)E %@ EIE1P)'RG '1'FE/ C@N/#ER#NF%H'%-

'. EIE1P)'RG '1'FE/ 'RE N@% REC@ER'B)E #N BRE'CH @8C@N%R'C% @8 C'RR#'FE 0N)E// %HE C'RR#ER #/ F0#)%G @8

W'N%@N, 8R'00)EN%, REC3)E//, @PPRE//#E @R 1')E@)EN%C@N0C%.

B. '//01#NF ARGUENDO%H'% &') W'/ F0#)%G @8 BRE'CH, &') #N@% 'C% #N ' W'N%@N 8R'00)EN%, REC3)E//, @PPRE//#E @R1')E@)EN% 1'NNER '/ %@ EN%#%)E RE/P@NEN% %@ EIE1P)'RG'1'FE/.

###.


6/12

'//01#NFARGUENDO%H'% RE/P@NEN% W'/ EN%#%)E %@ 'N 'W'R @8'1'FE/, WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ 'W'R @8 P :>?,???#N '1'FE/ W'/ EICE//#E 'N 0NPRECEEN%E.

#.

WHE%HER @R N@% %HE C@0R% @8 'PPE')/ ERRE #N N@% 8#N#NF 8@R &')@N #%/ C@0N%ERC)'#1.==(0nderscoring @urs*

Basically, there are three (* issues to resolve here- #1$ 9%+%r or (o+ JA i' il+ o/&o(+r*&+ o/ &*rri*%5 #2$ 9%+%r or (o+ r%'po()%(+ i' %(+i+l%) +o 3or*l *()%%3pl*r )*3*%'5 *() #-$ 9%+%r or (o+ JA i' %(+i+l%) +o i+' &o(+%r&l*i3 /or)*3*%'.

Or Rli(

This Court is not a trier of facts .

Chiefly, the issues are factual. %he R%C findings of facts "ere affired by the C'. %heC' also gave its nod to the reasoning of the R%C e!cept as to the a"ards of daages,"hich "ere reduced, and that of attorney6s fees, "hich "as deleted.

We are not a trier of facts. We generally rely upon, and are bound by, the conclusions onthis atter of the lo"er courts, "hich are better e2uipped and have better opportunity to

assess the evidence first9hand, including the testiony of the "itnesses.=>

We have repeatedly held that +% /i()i(' o/ /*&+ o/ +% CA *r% /i(*l *() &o(&l'i:%*() &*((o+ 6% r%:i%9%) o( *pp%*l +o +% Spr%3% Cor+ pro:i)%) +% *r% 6*'%)

o( '6'+*(+i*l %:i)%(&%.=7 We have no Aurisdiction, as a rule, to reverse their

findings.=:'ong the e!ceptions to this rule are- (a* "hen the conclusion is a findinggrounded entirely on speculations, surises or conAecturesD (b* "hen the inference adeis anifestly istaken, absurd or ipossibleD (c* "here there is grave abuse of discretionD(d* "hen the Audgent is based on a isapprehension of factsD (e* "hen the findings offacts are conflictingD (f* "hen the C', in aking its findings, "ent beyond the issues of

the case and the sae is contrary to the adissions of both appellant and appellee.=;

%he said e!ceptions, "hich are being invoked by &'), are not found here. %here is noindication that the findings of the C' are contrary to the evidence on record or that vitaltestionies of &')6s "itnesses "ere disregarded. Neither did the C' coitisapprehension of facts nor did it fail to consider relevant facts. )ike"ise, there "as no

grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts or istaken and absurd inferences.

We thus sustain the coherent facts as established by the courts belo", there being nosufficient sho"ing that the said courts coitted reversible error in reaching theirconclusions.

JAL is guilty of breach ofcontract of carriage.


7/12

%hat respondent purchased a round trip plane ticket fro &') and "as issued the

corresponding boarding pass is uncontroverted.=His plane ticket, boarding pass, travelauthority and personal articles "ere subAected to rigid iigration and security

procedure.>?'fter passing through said iigration and security procedure, he "asallo"ed by &') to enter its airplane to fly to )os 'ngeles, California, 0./.'. via Narita,

&apan.>$Concisely, there "as a contract of carriage bet"een &') and respondent.

Nevertheless, &') ade respondent get off the plane on his scheduled departure on &uly+, $+. He "as not allo"ed by &') to fly. JA +' /*il%) +o &o3pl 9i+ i+'o6li*+io( ()%r +% &o(+r*&+ o/ &*rri*%.

&') Austifies its action by arguing that there "as a need to verify the authenticity of

respondent6s travel docuent.>+ #t alleged that no one fro its airport staff had

encountered a parole visa before.> #t further contended that respondent agreed to fly

the ne!t day so that it could first verify his travel docuent, hence, there "as novation. >=

#t aintained that it "as not guilty of breach of contract of carriage as respondent "as not

able to travel to the 0nited /tates due to his o"n voluntary desistance. >>

We cannot agree. &') did not allo" respondent to fly. #t infored respondent that there"as a need to first check the authenticity of his travel docuents "ith the 0./.

Ebassy.>7's aditted by &'), the flight could not "ait for 1r. /iangan because it

"as ready to depart.>:

/ince &') definitely declared that the flight could not "ait for respondent, it gaverespondent no choice but to be left behind. %he latter "as uncereoniously buped offdespite his protestations and valid travel docuents and not"ithstanding his contract ofcarriage "ith &'). aage had already been done "hen respondent "as offered to flythe ne!t day on &uly ?, $+. /aid offer did not cure &')6s default.

Considering that respondent "as forced to get out of the plane and left behind againsthis "ill, he could not have freely consented to be rebooked the ne!t day. #n short, % )i)(o+ *r%% +o +% *ll%%) (o:*+io(. /ince novation iplies a "aiver of the right the

creditor had before the novation, such "aiver ust be e!press.>;#t cannot be supposed,"ithout clear proof, that respondent had "illingly done a"ay "ith his right to fly on &uly+, $+.

1oreover, the reason behind the buping off incident, as found by the R%C and C', "asthat &') personnel iputed that respondent "ould only use the trip to the 0nited /tates

as a prete!t to stay and "ork in &apan.>

'part fro the fact that respondent6s plane ticket, boarding pass, travel authority and

personal articles already passed the rigid iigration and security routines,7?&'), as acoon carrier, ought to kno" the kind of valid travel docuents respondent carried. 'sprovided in 'rticle $:>> of the Ne" Civil Code- ' coon carrier is bound to carry thepassengers safely as far as huan care and foresight can provide, using the utost

diligence of very cautious persons, "ith a due regard for all the circustances.7$%hus,We find untenable &')6s defense of verification of respondent6s docuents in its breachof contract of carriage.


8/12

#t bears repeating that the po"er to adit or not an alien into the country is a sovereign

act "hich cannot be interfered "ith even by &').7+

#n an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is re2uired of plaintiff is to prove thee!istence of such contract and its non9perforance by the carrier through the latter6s

failure to carry the passenger safely to his destination.7Respondent has coplied "ith

these t"in re2uisites.

Respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees pluslegal interest.

With reference to oral daages, &') alleged that they are not recoverable in actions e!contractu e!cept only "hen the breach is attended by fraud or bad faith. #t is contendedthat it did not act fraudulently or in bad faith to"ards respondent, hence, it ay not beheld liable for oral daages.

's a general rule, oral daages are not recoverable in actions for daages predicatedon a breach of contract for it is not one of the ites enuerated under 'rticle ++$ of the

Civil Code.7='s an e!ception, such daages are recoverable- ($* in cases in "hich theishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in 'rticle $:7=, in relation to

'rticle ++?7(* of the Civil CodeD and (+* in the cases in "hich the carrier is guilty of fraud

or bad faith, as provided in 'rticle +++?.7>

T% *&+' &o33i++%) 6 JA **i('+ r%'po()%(+ *3o(+' +o 6*) /*i+.'s found by theR%C, &') breached its contract of carriage "ith respondent in bad faith. &') personnelsuarily and insolently ordered respondent to disebark "hile the latter "as alreadysettled in his assigned seat. He "as ordered out of the plane under the alleged reasonthat the genuineness of his travel docuents should be verified.

%hese findings of facts "ere upheld by the C', to "it-

! ! ! he "as haughtily eAected by appellant. He "as certainly ebarrassed andhuiliated "hen, in the presence of other passengers, the appellant6s airline staffshouted at hi to stand up and arrogantly asked hi to produce his travel papers,"ithout the least courtesy every huan being is entitled to. %hen, he "as copelledto deplane on the grounds that his papers "ere fake. His protestation of having beenissued a 0./. visa coupled "ith his plea to appellant to closely onitor hisoveents "hen the aircraft stops over in Narita, "ere ignored. Worse, he "asade to "ait for any hours at the office of appellant only to be told later that he has

valid travel docuents.77(0nderscoring ours*

Clearly, JA i' li*6l% /or 3or*l )*3*%'. #t is firly settled that oral daages arerecoverable in suits predicated on breach of a contract of carriage "here it is proved thatthe carrier "as guilty of fraud or bad faith, as in this case. #nattention to and lack of carefor the interests of its passengers "ho are entitled to its utost consideration, particularlyas to their convenience, aount to bad faith "hich entitles the passenger to an a"ard oforal daages. What the la" considers as bad faith "hich ay furnish the ground for ana"ard of oral daages "ould be bad faith in securing the contract and in the e!ecution

thereof, as "ell as in the enforceent of its ters, or any other kind of deceit. 7:


9/12

JA i' *l'o li*6l% /or %%3pl*r )*3*%' as its above9entioned acts constitute"anton, oppressive and alevolent acts against respondent. E!eplary daages, "hichare a"arded by "ay of e!aple or correction for the public good, ay be recovered incontractual obligations, as in this case, if defendant acted in "anton, fraudulent, reckless,

oppressive, or alevolent anner.7;

E!eplary daages are designed by our civil la" to perit the courts to reshapebehaviour that is socially deleterious in its conse2uence by creating negative incentivesor deterrents against such behaviour. #n re2uiring copliance "ith the standard ofe!traordinary diligence, a standard "hich is, in fact, that of the highest possible degree ofdiligence, fro coon carriers and in creating a presuption of negligence againstthe, the la" seeks to copel the to control their eployees, to tae their reckless

instincts and to force the to take ade2uate care of huan beings and their property. 7

Neglect or alfeasance of the carrier6s eployees could give ground for an action fordaages. Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier6s eployees "ithkindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration and are entitled to be protectedagainst personal isconduct, inAurious language, indignities and abuses fro such

eployees.:?

%he assessent of P>??,???.?? as oral daages and P$??,???.?? as e!eplarydaages in respondent6s favor is, in @ur vie", reasonable and realistic. %his a"ard isreasonably sufficient to indenify hi for the huiliation and ebarrassent he suffered.%his also serves as an e!aple to discourage the repetition of siilar oppressive acts.

With respect to attorney6s fees, they ay be a"arded "hen defendant6s act or oissionhas copelled plaintiff to litigate "ith third persons or to incur e!penses to protect his

interest.:$ %he Court, in Construction Develoment Cororation of the !hiliines v.

Estrella,:+ citing "ra#ers Ro$al %an& Emlo$ees Union'(n#een#ent v. National La)or

Relations Commission,:elucidated thus-

%here are t"o coonly accepted concepts of attorney6s fees, the so9called ordinaryand e!traordinary. #n its ordinary concept, an attorney6s fee is the reasonablecopensation paid to a la"yer by his client for the legal services he has rendered tothe latter. %he basis of this copensation is the fact of his eployent by and hisagreeent "ith the client.

I( i+' %+r*or)i(*r &o(&%p+, *( *++or(%' /%% i' *( i()%3(i+ /or )*3*%'

or)%r%) 6 +% &or+ +o 6% p*i) 6 +% lo'i( p*r+ i( * li+i*+io(. %he basis ofthis is any of the cases provided by la" "here such a"ard can be ade, such as

those authori5ed in 'rticle ++?;, Civil Code, and i' p**6l% (o+ +o +% l*9%r 6+ +o+% &li%(+, (l%'' +% *:% *r%%) +*+ +% *9*r) '*ll p%r+*i( +o +% l*9%r *'

*))i+io(*l &o3p%('*+io( or *' p*r+ +%r%o/.:=

#t "as therefore erroneous for the C' to delete the a"ard of attorney6s fees on the groundthat the record is devoid of evidence to sho" the cost of the services of respondent6scounsel. %he aount is actually discretionary upon the Court so long as it passes the testof reasonableness. %hey ay be recovered as actual or copensatory daages "hen

e!eplary daages are a"arded and "henever the court dees it Aust and e2uitable,:>


10/12

as in this case.

Considering the factual backdrop of this case, attorney6s fees in the aount ofP+??,???.?? is reasonably odest.

%he above liabilities of &') in the total aount of P;??,???.?? earn legal interestpursuant to the Court6s ruling in Construction Develoment Cororation of the !hiliines

v. Estrella,:7citing Eastern *hiing Lines, (nc. v. Court of Aeals,::to "it-

Regarding the iposition of legal interest at the rate of 7J fro the tie of the filingof the coplaint, "e held in Eastern *hiing Lines, (nc. v. Court of Aeals , that"hen an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., la", contracts, 2uasi9contracts,delicts or 2uasi9delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for payent ofinterest in the concept of actual and copensatory daages, subAect to the follo"ingrules, to "it 9

$. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payent of a su ofoney, i.e., a loan or forbearance of oney, the interest due should be that

"hich ay have been stipulated in "riting. 8urtherore, the interest due shallitself earn legal interest fro the tie it is Audicially deanded. #n the absenceof stipulation, the rate of interest shall be $+J per annu to be coputedfro default, i.e., fro Audicial or e!traAudicial deand under and subAect tothe provisions of 'rticle $$7 of the Civil Code.

+. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of oney, isbreached, an interest on the aount of daages a"arded ay be iposed atthe discretion of the court at the rate of 7J er annum. No interest, ho"ever,shall be adAudged on unli2uidated clais or daages e!cept "hen or until thedeand can be established "ith reasonable certainty. 'ccordingly, "here thedeand is established "ith reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to

run fro the tie the clai is ade Audicially or e!traAudicially ('rt. $$7, CivilCode* but "hen such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at thetie the deand is ade, +% i(+%r%'+ '*ll 6%i( +o r( o(l /ro3 +% )*+%+% ;)3%(+ o/ +% &or+ i' 3*)% #*+ 9i& +i3% +%


11/12

JAL is not entitled to its counterclaim for damages.

%he counterclai of &') in its 'ns"er:is a copulsory counterclai for daages andattorney6s fees arising fro the filing of the coplaint. %here is no ention of any othercounter clais.

%his copulsory counterclai of &') arising fro the filing of the coplaint ay not begranted inasuch as the coplaint against it is obviously not alicious or unfounded. #t"as filed by respondent precisely to clai his right to daages against &'). Well9settledis the rule that the coenceent of an action does not er seake the action "rongfuland subAect the action to daages, for the la" could not have eant to ipose a penalty

on the right to litigate.;?

We reiterate case la" that i/ )*3*%' r%'l+ /ro3 * p*r+' %%r&i'% o/ * ri+, i+ i'

damnum absque injuria.81*9/l *&+' i:% ri'% +o (o i(;r.+alang erhuis$ongmaaring i#ulot ang aggamit sa sariling &araatan.

uring the trial, ho"ever, &') presented a "itness "ho testified that &') suffered furtherdaages. 'llegedly, respondent caused the publications of his subAect coplaint against

&') in the ne"spaper for "hich &') suffered daages.;+

'lthough these additional daages allegedly suffered by &') "ere not incorporated in its'ns"er as they arose subse2uent to its filing, &')6s "itness "as able to testify on the

sae before the R%C.;Hence, although these issues "ere not raised by the pleadings,they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.

's provided in /ection >, Rule $? of the Rules of Court, ?#9$%( i''%' (o+ r*i'%) 6+% pl%*)i(' *r% +ri%) 9i+ +% %pr%'' or i3pli%) &o('%(+ o/ +% p*r+i%', +% '*ll6% +r%*+%) i( *ll r%'p%&+' *' i/ +% *) 6%%( r*i'%) i( +% pl%*)i('.?

Nevertheless, &')6s counterclai cannot be granted.

&') is a coon carrier. &')6s business is ainly "ith the traveling public. #t invites

people to avail theselves of the coforts and advantages it offers. ;=/ince &') deals"ith the public, its buping off of respondent "ithout a valid reason naturally dre" publicattention and generated a public issue.

%he publications involved atters about "hich the public has the right to be inforedbecause they relate to a public issue. %his public issue or concern is a legitiate topic ofa public coent that ay be validly published.

'ssuing that respondent, indeed, caused the publication of his coplaint, he ay notbe held liable for daages for it. %he constitutional guarantee of /r%%)o3 o/ +% 'p%%&and of the press includes fair coentaries on atters of public interest. %his is

e!plained by the Court in %orjal v. Court of Aeals,;>to "it-

%o reiterate, fair coentaries on atters of public interest are privileged andconstitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. %he doctrine of faircoent eans that "hile in general every discreditable iputation publicly ade is


12/12

-03 japan airlines vs samangan

Documents