Damages 11.
Petitioners through counsel demanded from NW the amount of 3,000,000 as
G.R. No. 151783 – Savellano v Northwest
Panganiban, J.
Peititioners are politicians and bigtime businessmen. They were passengers that
had to be delayed aboard a Northwest plane because of a plane emergency. They filed
this complaint because they were allegedly mistreated and suffered humiliation because of
the delay and rerouting. The court here held that they cannot be entitled to moral damages
because they did not prove ill will on the part of NW. further, actual damages could not be
awarded because they did not prove actual losses either. They are, however, entitled to
nominal damages by virtue of their stature and the fact that they were first class
passengers entitled to better treatment.
DOCTRINE
1. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized and
not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
2. These are recoverable if no actual, substantial, specific damages were shown to
have resulted in the breach.
3. The amount is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account
relevant circumstances.
FACTS
1. Petitioners are Victorino Savellano as well as his wife and son. Victorino Savellano
was the mayer of Ilocos Sur for many terms, was a COMELEC chairman, and an RTC
judge. His entire family was well-connected and political (wife Virginia =
businesswoman, banker; son = vice-governor of Ilocos Sur during the incident in this
case)
2. Petitioners boarded a Northwest Airlines (NW) plane from SF to Manila. This plane
had to make an emergency landing in Seattle because a fire started in one of the
engines.
3. Petitioners and other passengers were told to use the same boarding passes +
seating arrangements on their flight to Manila the next day.
a. Passengers were billeted in a hotel, care of NW.
4. Petitioners received a call at 12mn that night, instructing them that they had to be at
the airport by 7am (they had to skip breakfast).
5. Virginia got anxious about getting “bumped off” of the flight home (because some of
the passengers were allegedly getting “bumped off”) – so much so that she had to
take valiums and cough syrup for a cold she developed.
6. They were then told by the ground staff at the airport that instead of flying straight to
Manila, they had to fly to LA and then to a connecting flight to Manila.
7. In LA, there were no boards posted for a Manila flight – they had to ask and complain
to NW personnel before they were informed where their gate was.
8. Their three small handcarried items were also not allowed inside the passenger
compartment (had to be checked in) by an “arrogant NW ground stewardess”
9. In Manila, they were teased by the other passengers because they had to take a
longer route/connecting flight while the other passengers got a direct flight.
10. Also, the three handcarried luggage they had to check in were ransacked and stolen
from (diamond earrings, shoes, watches, perfumes, camera, PC, jeans)
damages for humiliation and inconvenience they allegedly suffered.
a. NW impelled petitioners to file a case for damages – subject of the present
appeal.
b. Pets. Only complaint was inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation (for
taking the longer route).
12. RTC rendered judgment IFO petitioners
a. Granted moral, actual damages, exemplary.
13. CA ruled that petitioners failed to show bad faith, negligence, malice. Held that there
was NO BASIS for RTC’s award of moral and exemplary damages.
a. Claim of lossess by petitioner was unsupported by evidence (weird that
Virgina checked in a pair of earrings amounting to 300,000 in an unlocked,
checked in luggage.)  removed actual damages too.
14. Thus appeal.
ISSUE with HOLDING
2. W/N Petitioners are entitled to actual, moral, exemplary damages – PARTLY.
a. Re: breach of contract: There WAS A BREACH of CONTRACT OF
CARRIAGE
i. There was a contract of carriage between Savellanos and NW.
Contract is the law between the parties.
ii. Basis of complaint: the way NW allegedly treated petitioners like
puppets, shuttled back and forth between Manila, SF, LA, Korea
(stopovers) without their consent.
iii. Examining the conditions on the airline ticket, there was nothing
that authorized NW to decide unilaterally what stopovers
Savellanos could take OR WHEN they should fly.
1. There was a provision allowing NW to provide alternate carriers/vehicles/aircrafts
but that is not the same as changing stop-overs and connecting cities without
notice.
iv. This contract is one of adhesion – should be construed against
party causing its preparation: NW.
v. In addition, it was not shown that the alteration of the stop-over
destinations were done out of necessity. Burden of proving
necessity fell on NW – it was not adequately overcome.
vi. Respondent committed a breach of the contract of carriage.
b. Re: Damages –
i. Being guilty of a breach, respondent may be held liable for
damages suffered by petitioenrs in accordance with Articles 1170
and 2201 of the NCC:
1. 1170: those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof
are liable for damages.
2. 2201: In contracts and quasi-contract, 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 foresee 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.
ii. Petitioenrs impute oppression, discrimination, recklessness,
malevolence – the court is NOT conviced.
1. No persuasive evidence of singling them out. (Random divisions)
1
 iii. In the absence of bad faith, ill will, malice, wanton conduct,
respondent cannot be held liable for moral damages.
1. Such damages are not awarded if not shown fraud.
iv. Exemplary damages: awarded only when defendant acts in
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive manner.
v. Sudden requirement of having to arrange flights for every single
person is difficult to satisfy perfectly – cannot hold NW liable for
exemplary damages for its imperfection or neglectingto consult
with passengers before resetting flights.
vi. Petitioners are NOT totally deprived of compensation:
1. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized and
not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
2. These are recoverable if no actual, substantial, specific damages were shown to
have resulted in the breach.
3. The amount is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account
relevant circumstances.
a. Waking up early, missing breakfast, fact that
they were 1st class passengers paying more,
rushing, missing small comforts considering
their social and official functions = proper to
grant nominal damages.
4. Re losses: no timely complaint filed with NW, cannot award actual damages.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition is PARTIALLY granted

OTHER NOTES
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque ac erat placerat turpis
suscipit congue id quis erat. Curabitur lobortis metus ut purus venenatis…

DIGESTER:Reggie Perez 