Broken contract

Moral damages is recoverable in case of breach of contract and the party breaching it acted in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner. This is the rule applied in this case of Andy and Jenny.

Andy and Jenny booked for a flight to Los Angeles, USA with Japan Airlines Flight 742. Their itinerary included a stop-over in Narita with an overnight stay at Hotel Nikko. For such overnight stay, Andy and Jenny had to get shore passes at the immigration counter in Narita airport. Ms. Valdez, the JAL representative in Manila explained to them and their mother the procedure in applying and securing the shore passes which was the sole responsibility of passengers rather than the airline.

Upon arrival at Narita, Ms. Maru the JAL personnel endorsed the application of Jenny and Andy for the shore passes and directed them to the Japanese immigration official. During the interview, the immigration official noticed that Andy appeared shorter than his height as indicated in his passport. Because of this inconsistency, Andy and Jenny were denied shore pass entries. The official notified Ms. Maru about such denial with a note stating that Andy and Jenny were to be "watched so as not to escape". Upon being notified of the denial, Ms. Maru did all she could to help Andy and Jenny. She immediately made reservations for them at the Narita Rest House which is really more of a hotel than a detention house. Then the International Service Center of the Japanese Immigration brought Andy and Jenny to the Rest House where they stayed overnight until their departure the following day for L.A. Andy and Jenny were charged US$400 each for accommodation, security service and meals.

Upon their return to Manila, Andy and Jenny lost no time in suing JAL for the recovery of the US$800 with moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. After the trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) awarded them the $800 plus moral damages of P200,000 each, exemplary damages of P100,000 each and P100,000 attorney’s fees. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and CA correct?

NO. JAL did not breach its contract of carriage to transport Jenny and Andy and their luggage safely to their destination. It may be true the JAL has the duty to determine whether its passengers have the necessary travel documents. However, such duty does not extend to checking the veracity of every entry in these documents. JAL could not vouch for the authenticity of a passport and the correctness of the entries therein. The power to admit or not an alien into a country is a sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL. This is not within the ambit of the contract of carriage entered into by JAL and Jenny and Andy. As such JAL should not be faulted for the denial of their shore pass applications.

Moral damages may be recovered in cases of breach of contract where the other party acts fraudulently or in bad faith. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, when the party to a contract acts in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Attorney’s fees are awarded when exemplary damages are awarded and when the party to a suit is compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest. There being no breach of contract, and JAL not having acted in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner, there is no basis for the award of any form of damages. Neither should JAL be held liable to reimburse Jenny and Andy the amount of $800. Said amount pertained to the agency tasked to handle the passengers denied shore passes in payment for their accommodations. The payment did not in any manner accrue to JAL (Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion et. al. G.R. 161730).

E-mail: [email protected]