G.R. No. 108253 February 23, 1994
LYDIA L. GERALDEZ, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and KENSTAR TRAVEL CORPORATION, respondents.
Natividad T. Perez for petitioner.
Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo for private respondent.
REGALADO, J.:
Our
tourism industry is not only big business; it is a revenue support of
the nation's economy. It has become a matter of public interest as to
call for its promotion and regulation on a cabinet level. We have
special laws and policies for visiting tourists, but such protective
concern has not been equally extended to Filipino tourists going abroad.
Thus, with the limited judicial relief available within the ambit of
present laws, our tourists often prefer who fail to deliver on their
undertakings. This case illustrates the recourse of one such tourist who
refused to forget.
An action
for damages by reason of contractual breach was filed by petitioner
Lydia L. Geraldez against private respondent Kenstar Travel Corporation,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-4649 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 80. 1 After the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, trial on the merits ensued.
Culling from the records thereof, we find that
sometime in October, 1989, Petitioner came to know about private
respondent from numerous advertisements in newspapers of general
circulation regarding tours in Europe. She then contacted private
respondent by phone and the latter sent its representative, Alberto Vito
Cruz, who gave her the brochure for the tour and later discussed its
highlights. The European tours offered were classified into four, and
petitioner chose the classification denominated as "VOLARE 3" covering a
22-day tour of Europe for $2,990.00. She paid the total equivalent
amount of P190,000.00 charged by private respondent for her and her
sister, Dolores.
Petitioner
claimed that, during the tour, she was very uneasy and disappointed when
it turned out that, contrary to what was stated in the brochure, there
was no European tour manager for their group of tourists, the hotels in
which she and the group were bullited were not first-class, the UGC
Leather Factory which was specifically added as a highlight of the tour
was not visited, and the Filipino lady tour guide by private respondent
was a first timer, that is, she was performing her duties and
responsibilities as such for the first time. 2
In
said action before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, petitioner
likewise moved for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment
against private respondent on the ground that it committed fraud in
contracting an obligation, as contemplated in Section 1(d), Rule 57 of
the Rules of Court, to which no opposition by the latter appears on the
record. This was granted by the court a quo 3 but
the preliminary attachment was subsequently lifted upon the filing by
private respondent of a counterbond amounting to P990,000.00. 4
During
the pendency of said civil case for damages, petitioner also filed
other complaints before the Department of Tourism in DOT Case No. 90-121
and the Securities and Exchange Commission in PED Case No. 90-3738, 5
wherein, according to petitioner, herein private respondent was meted
out a fine of P10,000.00 by the Commission and P5,000.00 by the
Department, 6 which facts are not disputed by private respondent in its comment on the present petition.
On July 9, 1991, the court a quo rendered its decision 7
ordering private respondent to pay petitioner P500.000.00 as moral
damages, P200,000.00 as nominal damages, P300,000.00 as exemplary
damages, P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, and the costs of the
suit. 8 On appeal, respondent court 9
deleted the award for moral and exemplary damages, and reduced the
awards for nominal damages and attorney's fees to P30,000.00 and
P10,000.00, respectively. 10
Hence,
the instant petition from which, after sifting through the blades of
contentions alternately thrust and parried in the exchanges of the
parties, the pivotal issue that emerges is whether or not private
respondent acted in bad faith or with gross negligence in discharging
its obligations under the contract.
Both the respondent court and the court a quo agree
that private respondent failed to comply faithfully with its
commitments under the Volare 3 tour program, more particularly in not
providing the members of the tour group with a European tour manger
whose duty, inter alia, was to explain the points of interest of
and familiarize the tour group with the places they would visit in
Europe, and in assigning instead a first timer Filipino tour guide, in
the person of Rowena Zapanta, 11
to perform that role which definitely requires experience and knowledge
of such places. It is likewise undisputed that while the group was able
to pay a visit to the site of the UGC Leather Factory, they were
brought there at a very late hour such that the factory was already
closed and they were unable to make purchases at supposedly discounted
prices. 12 As to the first-class hotels, however, while the court a quo
found that the hotels were not fist-class, respondent court believed
otherwise, or that, at least, there was substantial compliance with such
a representation.
While
clearly there was therefore a violation of the rights of petitioner
under the aforementioned circumstances, respondent court, contrary to
the findings of the trial court, ruled that no malice or bad faith could
be imputed to private respondent, hence there is no justification for
the award of moral and exemplary damages. Furthermore, it held that
while petitioner is entitled to nominal damages, the amount awarded by
the trial court was unconscionable since petitioner did not suffer
actual or substantial damage from the breach of contract, 13 hence its reduction of such award as hereinbefore stated.
After thorough and painstaking scrutiny of the case
records of both the trial and appellate courts, we are satisfactorily
convinced, and so hold, that private respondent did commit fraudulent
misrepresentations amounting to bad faith, to the prejudice of
petitioner and the members of the tour group.
By
providing the Volare 3 tourist group, of which petitioner was a member,
with an inexperienced and a first timer tour escort, private respondent
manifested its indifference to the convenience, satisfaction and peace
of mind of its clients during the trip, despite its express commitment
to provide such facilities under the Volare 3 Tour Program which had the
grandiose slogan "Let your heart sing. 14
Evidently, an inexperienced tour escort, who admittedly had not even theretofore been to Europe, 15
cannot effectively acquaint the tourists with the interesting areas in
the cities and places included in the program, or to promptly render
necessary assistance, especially where the latter are complete strangers
thereto, like witnesses Luz Sui Haw and her husband who went to Europe
for their honeymoon. 16
We
agree with petitioner that the selection of Zapanta as the group's tour
guide was deliberate and conscious choice on the part of private
respondent in order to afford her an on-the-job training and equip her
with the proper opportunities so as to later qualify her as an
"experienced" tour guide and eventually be an asset of respondent
corporation. 17
Unfortunately, this resulted in a virtual project experimentation with
petitioner and the members of the tour as the unwitting participants.
We are,
therefore, one with respondent court in faulting private respondent's
choice of Zapanta as a qualified tour guide for the Volare 3 tour
package. It brooks no argument that to be true to its undertakings,
private respondent should have selected an experienced European tour
guide, or it could have allowed Zapanta to go merely as an understudy
under the guidance, control and supervision of an experienced and
competent European or Filipino tour guide, 18 who could give her the desired training.
Moreover, a
tour guide is supposed to attend to the routinary needs of the
tourists, not only when the latter ask for assistance but at the moment
such need becomes apparent. In other words, the tour guide, especially
by reason of her experience in previous tours, must be able to
anticipate the possible needs and problems of the tourists instead of
waiting for them to bring it to her attention. While this is stating the
obvious, it is her duty to see to it that basic personal necessities
such as soap, towels and other daily amenities are provided by the
hotels. It is also expected of her to see to it that the tourists are
provided with sanitary surroundings and to actively arrange for medical
attention in case of accidents, as what befell petitioner's sister and
wherein the siblings had to practically fend for themselves since, after
merely calling for an ambulance, Zapanta left with the other tour
participants. 19
Zapanta
fell far short of the performance expected by the tour group, her
testimony in open court being revelatory of her inexperience even on the
basic function of a tour guide, to wit:
Q Now, are you aware that there were times that the tourists under the "Volare 3" were not provided with soap and towels?
A They did not tell me that but I was able to ask them later on but then nobody is complaining. 20 . . . .
The
inability of the group to visit the leather factory is likewise
reflective of the neglect and ineptness of Zapanta in attentively
following the itinerary of the day. This incompetence must necessarily
be traced to the lack of due diligence on the part of private respondent
in the selection of its employees. It is true that among the thirty-two
destinations, which included twenty-three cities and special visits to
nine tourist spots, this was the only place that was not visited. 21 It must be noted, however, that the visit to the UGC Leather Factory was one of the highlights 22
of the Volare 3 program which even had to be specifically inserted in
the itinerary, hence it was incumbent upon the organizers of the tour to
take special efforts to ensure the same. Besides, petitioner did expect
much from the visit to that factory since it was represented by private
respondent that quality leather goods could be bought there at lower
prices. 23
Private
respondent represents Zapanta's act of making daily overseas calls to
Manila as an exercise of prudence and diligence on the latter's part as a
tour guide. 24
It further claims that these calls were needed so that it could monitor
the progress of the tour and respond to any problem immediately. 25
We are not persuaded. The truth of the matter is that Zapanta, as an
inexperienced trainee-on-the-job, was required to make these calls to
private respondent for the latter to gauge her ability in coping with
her first assignment and to provide instructions to her. 26
Clearly,
therefore, private respondent's choice of Zapanta as the tour guide is a
manifest disregard of its specific assurances to the tour group,
resulting in agitation and anxiety on their part, and which deliberate
omission is contrary to the elementary rules of good faith and fair
play. It is extremely doubtful if any group of Filipino tourists would
knowingly agree to be used in effect as guinea pigs in an employees'
training program of a travel agency, to be conducted in unfamiliar
European countries with their diverse cultures, lifestyles and
languages.
On the matter of the European tour manager, private
respondent's advertisement in its tour contract declares and represents
as follows:
FILIPINO TOUR ESCORT!
He will accompany you throughout Europe. He speaks your language, shares your culture and feels your excitement.
He won't be alone because you will also be accompanied by a . . .
EUROPEAN TOUR MANAGER!
You
get the best of both worlds. Having done so may tours in the past with
people like you, he knows your sentiments, too. So knowledgeable about
Europe, there is hardly a question he can't answer. 27
Private
respondent contends that the term "European Tour Manager" does not
refer to an individual but to an organization, allegedly the Kuoni
Travel of Switzerland which supposedly prepared the itinerary for its
"Volare Europe Tour," negotiated with all the hotels in Europe, selected
tourist spots and historical places to visit, and appointed experienced
local tour guides for the tour group. 28
We regret this unseemly quibbling which perforce cannot be allowed to pass judicial muster.
A cursory reading of said advertisement will readily
reveal the express representation that the contemplated European tour
manager is a natural person, and not a juridical one as private
respondent asserts. A corporate entity could not possibly accompany the
members of the tour group to places in Europe; neither can it answer
questions from the tourists during the tour. Of course, it is absurd
that if a tourist would want to know how he could possibly go to the
nearest store or supermarket, he would still have to call Kuoni Travel
of Switzerland.
Furthermore,
both lower courts observed, and we uphold their observations, that
indeed private respondent had the obligation to provide the tour group
not only with a European tour manger, but also with local European tour
guides. The latter, parenthetically, were likewise never made available.
29
Zapanta claims that she was accompanied by a European local tour guide
in most of the major cities in Europe. We entertain serious doubts on,
and accordingly reject, this pretension for she could not even remember
the name of said European tour guide. 30
If such a guide really existed, it is incredible why she could not even
identify the former when she testified a year later, despite the length
of their sojourn and the duration of their association.
As to why
the word "he" was used in the aforequoted advertisement, private
respondent maintains that the pronoun "he" also includes the word "it,"
as where it is used as a "nominative case form in general statements (as
in statutes) to include females, fictitious persons (as corporations)."
31
We are constrained to reject this submission as patently strained and
untenable. As already demonstrated, it is incredible that the word "he"
was used by private respondent to denote an artificial or corporate
being. From its advertisement, it is beyond cavil that the import of the
word "he" is a natural and not a juridical person. There is no need for
further interpretation when the wordings are clear. The meaning that
will determine the legal effect of a contract is that which is arrived
at by objective standards; one is bound, not by what he subjectively
intends, but by what he leads others reasonably to think he intends. 32
In
an obvious but hopeless attempt to arrive at a possible justification,
private respondent further contends that it explained the concept of a
European tour manager to its clients at the pre-departure briefing,
which petitioner did not attend. 33
Significantly, however, private respondent failed to present even one
member of the tour group to substantiate its claim. It is a basic rule
of evidence that a party must prove his own affirmative allegations. 34
Besides, if it was really its intention to provide a juridical European
tour manager, it could not have kept on promising its tourists during
the tour that a European tour manager would come, 35 supposedly to join and assist them.
Veering to another line of defense, private
respondent seeks sanctuary in the delimitation of its responsibility as
printed on the face of its brochure on the Volare 3 program, to wit:
RESPONSIBILITIES: KENSTAR TRAVEL CORPORATION, YOUR TRAVEL AGENT, THEIR EMPLOYEES OR SUB-AGENTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR BOOKING AND MAKING ARRANGEMENTS AS YOUR AGENTS. Kenstar
Travel Corporation, your travel Agent, their employees or sub-agents
assume no responsibility or liability arising out of or in connection
with the services or lack of services, of any train, vessel, other
conveyance or station whatsoever in the performance of their duty to the
passengers or guests, neither will they be responsible for any act,
error or omission, or of any damages, injury, loss, accident, delay or
irregularity which may be occasioned by reason (of) or any defect in . . . lodging place or any facilities . . . . (Emphasis by private respondent.) 36
While,
generally, the terms of a contract result from the mutual formulation
thereof by the parties thereto, it is of common knowledge that there are
certain contracts almost all the provisions of which have been drafted
by only one party, usually a corporation. Such contracts are called
contracts of adhesion, because the only participation of the party is
the affixing of his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. 37 In situations like these, when a party imposes upon another a ready-made form of contract, 38
and the other is reduced to the alternative of taking it or leaving it,
giving no room for negotiation and depriving the latter of the
opportunity to bargain on equal footing, a contract of adhesion results.
While it is true that an adhesion contract is not necessarily void, it
must nevertheless be construed strictly against the one who drafted the
same. 39
This is especially true where the stipulations are printed in fine
letters and are hardly legible as is the case of the tour contract 40 involved in the present controversy.
Yet, even assuming arguendo that the
contractual limitation aforequoted is enforceable, private respondent
still cannot be exculpated for the reason that responsibility arising
from fraudulent acts, as in the instant case, cannot be stipulated
against by reason of public policy. Consequently, for the foregoing
reasons, private respondent cannot rely on its defense of "substantial
compliance" with the contract.
Private
respondent submits likewise that the tour was satisfactory, considering
that only petitioner, out of eighteen participants in the Volare 3 Tour
Program, actually complained. 41
We cannot accept this argument. Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court declares that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another, a statutory adaptation of the first branch of the hornbook rule of res inter alios acta 42 which we do not have to belabor here.
Besides, it
is a commonly known fact that there are tourists who, although the tour
was far from what the tour operator undertook under the contract,
choose to remain silent and forego recourse to a suit just to avoid the
expenses, hassle and rancor of litigation, and not because the tour was
in accord with was promised. One does not relish adding to the bitter
memory of a misadventure the unpleasantness of another extended
confrontation. Furthermore, contrary to private respondent's assertion,
not only petitioner but two other members of the tour group, Luz Sui Haw
and Ercilla Ampil, confirmed petitioner's complaints when they
testified as witnesses for her as plaintiff in the court below. 43
Private
respondent likewise committed a grave misrepresentation when it assured
in its Volare 3 tour package that the hotels it had chosen would
provide the tourists complete amenities and were conveniently located
along the way for the daily itineraries. 44
It turned out that some of the hotels were not sufficiently equipped
with even the basic facilities and were at a distance from the cities
covered by the projected tour. Petitioner testified on her disgust with
the conditions and locations of the hotels, thus:
Q And that these bathrooms ha(ve) bath tub(s) and hot and cold shower(s)?
A Not all, sir.
Q Did they also provide soap and towels?
A Not all, sir, some (had) no toilet paper. 45
Q Which one?
A The 2 stars, the 3 stars and some 4 stars (sic) hotels.
Q What I am saying . . .
A You are asking a question? I am answering you. 2
stars, 3 stars and some 4 stars (sic) hotels, no soap, toilet paper and
(the) bowl
stinks. . . .
stinks. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Q And that except for the fact that some of these four star hotels were outside the city they provided you with the comfort?
A Not all, sir.
Q Can you mention some which did not provide you that comfort?
A
For example, if Ramada Hotel Venezia is in Quezon City, our hotel is in
Meycauayan. And if Florence or Ferenze is in manila, our hotel is in
Muntinlupa. 46
xxx xxx xxx
A
One more hotel, sir, in Barcelona, Hotel Saint Jacques is also outside
the city. Suppose Barcelona is in Quezon City, our hotel is in Marilao.
We looked for this hotel inside the city of Barcelona for three (3)
hours. We wasted our time looking for almost all the hotels and places
where to eat. That is the kind of tour that you have. 47
Luz Sui
Haw, who availed of the Volare 3 tour package with her husband for
their honeymoon, shared the sentiments of petitioner and testified as
follows:
Q . . . Will you kindly tell us why the hotels where you stayed are not considered first class hotels?
A
Because the hotels where we went, sir, (are) far from the City and the
materials used are not first class and at times there were no towels and
soap. And the two (2) hotels in Nevers and Florence the conditions
(are) very worse (sic). 48
Q
Considering that you are honeymooners together with your husband, what
(were) your feelings when you found out that the condition were not
fulfilled by the defendant?
A I
would like to be very honest. I got sick when I reached Florence and
half of my body got itch (sic). I think for a honeymooner I would like
to emphasize that we should enjoy that day of our life and it seems my
feet kept on itching because of the condition of the hotel. And I was so
dissatisfied because the European Tour Manager was not around there
(were) beautiful promises. They kept on telling us that a European Tour
Manager will come over; until our Paris tour was ended there was no
European tour manager. 49
xxx xxx xxx
Q You will file an action against the defendant
because there was a disruption of your happiness, in your honeymoon, is
that correct?
A
That is one of my causes of (sic) coming up here. Secondly, i was very
dissatisfied (with) the condition. Thirdly, that Volare 89 it says it
will let your heart sing. That is not true. There was no European tour
(manager) and the highlights of the tour (were) very poor. The hotels
were worse (sic) hotels. 50
Q All the conditions of the hotels as you . . .
A
Not all but as stated in the brochure that it is first class hotel. The
first class hotels state that all things are beautiful and it is neat
and clean with complete amenities and I encountered the Luxembourg hotel
which is quite very dilapidated because of the flooring when you step
on the side "kumikiring" and the cabinets (are) antiques and as
honeymooners we don't want to be disturbed or seen. 51
xxx xxx xxx
Q None of these are first class hotels?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, for example Ramada Hotel Venezia which according to Miss Geraldez is first class hotel is not first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q You share the opinion of Miss Geraldez?
A Yes, sir.
Q The same is true with Grand Hotel Palatino which is not a first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Hotel Delta Florence is not first class hotel?
A That is how I got my itch, sir. Seven (7) days of itch.
Q How about Hotel Saint-Jacquez, Paris?
A It is far from the city. It is not first class hotel.
Q So with Hotel Le Prieure Du Coeur de Jesus neither a first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Hotel De Nevers is not a first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Hotel Roc Blanc Andorra is not a first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Saint Just Hotel, Barcelona is not a first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Hotel Pullman Nice neither is not a first class hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Hotel Prinz Eugen and Austrotel are not first class hotels?
A Yes, sir. 52
Private
respondent cannot escape responsibility by seeking refuge under the
listing of first-class hotels in publications like the "Official Hotel
and Resort Guide" and Worldwide Hotel Guide." 53 Kuoni Travel, its tour operator, 54 which prepared the hotel listings, is a European-based travel agency 55
and, as such, could have easily verified the matter of first-class
accommodations. Nor can it logically claim that the first-class hotels
in Europe may not necessarily be the first-class hotels here in the
Philippines. 56
It is reasonable for petitioner to assume that the promised first-class
hotels are equivalent to what are considered first-class hotels in
Manila. Even assuming arguendo that there is indeed a difference
in classifications, it cannot be gainsaid that a first-class hotel could
at the very least provide basic necessities and sanitary
accommodations. We are accordingly not at all impressed by private
respondent's attempts to trivialize the complaints thereon by petitioner
and her companions.
In a last
ditch effort to justify its choice of the hotels, private respondent
contends that it merely provided such "first class" hotels which are
commensurate to the tourists budget, or which were, under the given
circumstances, the "best for their money." It postulated that it could
not have offered better hostelry when the consideration paid for hotel
accommodations by the tour participants was only so much, 57 and the tour price of $2,990.00 covers a European tour for 22 days inclusive of lower room rates and meals. 58 this is implausible, self-serving and borders on sophistry.
The fact
that the tourists were to pay a supposedly lower amount, such that
private respondent allegedly retained hardly enough as reasonable
profit, 59
does not justify a substandard form of service in return. It was
private respondent, in the first place, which fixed the charges for the
package tour and determined the services that could be availed of
corresponding to such price. Hence, it cannot now be heard to complain
that it only made a putative marginal profit out of the transaction. if
it could not provide the tour participants with first-class lodgings on
the basis of the amount that they paid, it could and should have instead
increased the price to enable it to arrange for the promised
first-class accommodations.
On the
foregoing considerations, respondent court erred in deleting the award
for moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages may be awarded in
breaches of contract where the obligor acted fraudulently or in bad
faith. 60
From the facts earlier narrated, private respondent can be faulted with
fraud in the inducement, which is employed by a party to a contract in
securing the consent of the other.
This fraud or dolo which is present or employed at the time of birth or perfection of a contract may either be dolo causante or dolo incidente. The
first, or causal fraud referred to in Article 1338, are those
deceptions or misrepresentations of a serious character employed by one
party and without which the other party would not have entered into the
contract. Dolo incidente, or incidental fraud which is referred
to in Article 1344, are those which are not serious in character and
without which the other party would still have entered into the
contract. 61 Dolo causante determines or is the essential cause of the consent, while dolo incidente refers only to some particular or accident of the
obligations. 62 The effects of dolo causante are the nullity of the contract and the indemnification of damages, 63 and dolo incidente also obliges the person employing it to pay damages. 64
obligations. 62 The effects of dolo causante are the nullity of the contract and the indemnification of damages, 63 and dolo incidente also obliges the person employing it to pay damages. 64
In either case, whether private respondent has committed dolo causante or dolo incidente by
making misrepresentations in its contracts with petitioner and other
members of the tour group, which deceptions became patent in the light
of after-events when, contrary to its representations, it employed an
inexperienced tour guide, housed the tourist group in substandard
hotels, and reneged on its promise of a European tour manager and the
visit to the leather factory, it is indubitably liable for damages to
petitioner.
In the
belief that an experienced tour escort and a European tour manager would
accompany them, with the concomitant reassuring and comforting thought
of having security and assistance readily at hand, petitioner was
induced to join the Volare 3 tourists, instead of travelling alone 65
She likewise suffered serious anxiety and distress when the group was
unable to visit the leather factory and when she did not receive
first-class accommodations in their lodgings which were misrepresented
as first-class hotels. These, to our mind, justify the award for moral
damages, which are in the category of an award designed to compensate
the claimant for that injury which she had suffered, and not as a
penalty on the wrongdoer, 66 we believe that an award of P100,000.00 is sufficient and reasonable.
When moral
damages are awarded, especially for fraudulent conduct, exemplary
damages may also be decreed. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. According to the code
Commission, exemplary damages are required by public policy, for wanton
acts must be suppressed. 67
An award, therefore, of P50,000.00 is called for to deter travel
agencies from resorting to advertisements and enticements with the
intention of realizing considerable profit at the expense of the public,
without ensuring compliance with their express commitments. While,
under the present state of the law, extraordinary diligence is not
required in travel or tour contracts, such as that in the case at bar,
the travel agency acting as tour operator must nevertheless be held to
strict accounting for contracted services, considering the public
interest in tourism, whether in the local or in the international scene.
Consequently, we have to likewise reject the theory of private
respondent that the promise it made in the tour brochure may be regarded
only as "commendatory trade talk." 68
With regard to the honorarium for counsel as an item of damages, since we are awarding moral and exemplary damages, 69 and
considering the legal importance of the instant litigation and the
efforts of counsel evident from the records of three levels of the
judicial hierarchy, we favorably consider the amount of P20,000.00
therefor.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE, and another one
rendered, ordering private respondent Kenstar Travel Corporation to pay
petitioner Lydia L. Geraldez the sums of P100,000.00 by way of moral
damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as and for
attorney's fees, with costs against private respondent. The award for
nominal damages is hereby deleted.
Padilla, Nocon and Puno, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., took no part.
#Footnotes
2 Ibid., 90.
3 Ibid., 124.
4 Ibid., 152.
5 Exhibits 6-CC-1, 6-DD-1, Folder of Exhibits for Defendant Kenstar Travel Corporation.
6 Rollo, 27.
7 Original record, 256; per Judge Benigno T. Dayaw.
8 Ibid., 271.
9 Justice Regina G. Ordoñez-Benitez as ponente, with Justices Gloria C. Paras and Eduardo G. Montenegro concurring.
10 Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No, 34961, Decision, 10.
11 Ibid., 5; Original Record, 264.
12 Ibid., 6.
13 Ibid., 8-10.
14 Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8.
15 TSN, December 14, 1990, 27.
16 TSN, November 15, 1990, 15.
17 Petition, 10; Rollo, 20.
18 Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 34961, Decision, 7.
19 TSN, December 14, 1990, 31.
20 Ibid., id., 29.
21 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 31; Rollo, 132.
22 Original record, 183, Exhibit 8.
23 Ibid., 25.
24 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 20; Rollo, 121.
25 Id., 19; ibid., 120.
26 TSN, December 14, 1990, 31.
27 Supra., Fn. 22.
28 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 21-24; Rollo, 122-125.
29 Rollo, CA-G.R. CV No. 34961, Decision, 5.
30 TSN, December 14, 1990, 28.
31 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 25; Rollo, 126.
32 U.S.-Bach vs. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., C.C.A. Ohio 155 F. 2d 361, 365.
33 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 23; Rollo, 124.
34 Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court.
35 TSN, November 15, 1990, 16.
36 Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8-A; Memorandum for Private Respondent, 11; Rollo, 112.
37 BPI Credit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96755, December 4, 1991, 204 SCRA 601.
38 Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-40597, June 29, 1979, 91 SCRA 223.
39 Saludo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95536, March 23, 1992, 207 SCRA 498; see also Art. 1377, Civil Code.
40 Original Record, 183, Exhibit 8-A.
41 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 18; Rollo, 119.
42 This specific facet of the rule more fully states: Res inter alios acta aliis neque nole potest.
43 TSN, November 15, 1990, 10-27; 37-52.
44 Original Record, 183, Exhibit A.
45 TSN, October 12, 1990, 20.
46 Ibid., id., 21-22.
47 Ibid., id., 22-23.
48 Ibid., November 15, 1990, 10.
49 Ibid., id., 16-17.
50 Ibid., id., 19-20
51 Ibid., id., 25-26.
52 Ibid., id., 26-27.
53 Memorandum for Private Respondents, 27; Rollo, 128.
54 TSN, March 22, 1991, 22.
55 Supra., Fn. 53.
56 See TSN, December 14, 1990, 22.
57 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 17; Rollo, 118.
58 Id., 28-31; ibid., 129-132.
59 Ibid., 29; id., 130.
60 Articled 2220, Civil Code.
61 Jurado, Comments and Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts, 1987 ed., 438.
62 Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1986 ed., 509.
63 Op. cit., 510.
64 Article 1344, Civil Code.
65 TSN, October 12, 1990, 14.
66 Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 88013, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 360.
67 De Guzman vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 90856, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 723.
68 Memorandum for Private Respondent, 33; Rollo, 134.
69 Article 2208(1), Civil Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment