Korean Airlines v. CA

2. Korean Airlines v. CA

Facts: FACTS: 1. Juanito Juanito Lapuz, Lapuz, an automotiv automotive e electrician electrician was contract contracted ed for employment in Jedda, Saudi Ara!ia for 1 year trou" #an #aci$c %verseas &ecruitin" Services and was supposed to leave on 'ov (, 1()* via +orean Airlines . -e was initi initiall ally y waitli waitliste sted d !ut !ut wen wen  passen passen"e "ers rs did not appear, Lapuz and #erico were "iven te  unclaimed seats . Lapuz Lapuz was allowed allowed to cec/ cec/ in w0 1 suitcase suitcase and and 1 soulder soulder !a" at te cec/ in counter of +AL and was cleared for departure . -e was a!le a!le to ride in te te suttle suttle !us !us and procee proceeded ded to te te ramp of +AL 2. 3en e e was at te stairs, stairs, a +AL +AL o4cer pointe pointed d to im and souted 5down6 7own68 and was tus !arred from ta/in" te 9i"t . 3en e later as/ed as/ed for anoter anoter !oo/in", !oo/in", it was canceled !y +AL and was una!le to report for is wor/ w0in te stipulated ;wee/ period and lost is employment ? 3eter moral and e@emplary e@emplary dama"es sould !e awarded, and to wat e@tent -eld:  Te status of Lapuz as stand!y passen"er passen"er was can"ed can"ed to tat of a con$rmed passen"er passen"er wen is name was entered in te passen"er manifest of +AL for its Fli"t 'o. + (*. -is clearance trou" immi"ration and customs clearly sows tat e ad indeed !een con$rmed as a passen"er of +AL in tat 9i"t.

•

•

•

•

•

•

+AL tus committed a !reac of te contract of carria"e !etw !etwee een n tem tem wen wen it fail failed ed to !rin !rin" " Lapu Lapuz z to is destination. A contract to transport passen"ers is diBerent in /ind and de"ree from any oter contractual relation. Te !usiness of  te carrier carrier is mainly mainly wit te travelin travelin" " pu!lic. pu!lic. =t invites invites people to avail temselves of te comforts and advanta"es it oBers. Te contract of air carria"e "enerates a relation attended wit a pu!lic duty. #assen #assen"er "ers s ave te ri"t ri"t to !e treated treated !y te carriers carriers emplo employee yees s wit wit /indn /indness ess,, respe respect ct,, court courtesy esy and and due consider consideration ation.. Tey are entitle entitled d to !e protect protected ed a"ainst a"ainst personal personal miscondu misconduct, ct, inDurious inDurious lan"ua" lan"ua"e, e, indi"nit indi"nities ies and a!uses from suc employees. So it is tat any discourteous conduct on te part of tese employees toward a passen"er "ives te latter an action for dama"es a"ainst te carrier.  Te !reac of contract was a""ravated in tis case wen, instead of courteously informin" Lapuz of is !ein" a Ewait; listedE listedE passen"e passen"er, r, a +AL o4cer rudely rudely souted souted E7own6 7own6E wn6E wile ile poin ointin" in" at im, im, tus us caus ausin" in" im em!arrassment and pu!lic umiliation.  Te evidence presented !y Lapuz sows tat e ad indeed cec/ cec/ed ed in at te depar departu ture re counte counter, r, passed passed tro trou" u"  customs customs and immi"ration, immi"ration, !oarded !oarded te suttle suttle !us and proceeded to te ramp of +ALs aircraft. =n fact, fact, is !a""a" !a""a"e e ad already already !een !een loade loaded d in +ALs +ALs aircraft aircraft,, to !e 9own wit im to Jedda. Jedda. Te contract contract of  carria"e !etween im and +AL ad already !een perfected wen e was summarily summarily and insolent insolently ly preven prevented ted from !oardin" te aircraft.

>? Te Court of Appeals "ranted moral and e@emplary dama"es !ecause: a. Te $ndin"s $ndin"s of te court court a uo tat te defendan defendant;ap t;appell pellant ant as committed !reac of contract of carria"e in !ad fait and in wanton, wanton, disre"ar disre"ard d of plaintiB; plaintiB;appe appellant llants s ri"ts ri"ts as passen"er laid te !asis and Dusti$cation of an award for moral dama"es. !. =n te instant instant case, we $nd tat defend defendant;a ant;appe ppellant llant +ore +orean an Air Lines acted in a wanton, fraudulent, rec/less, oppressive or malevo malevole lent nt manne mannerr wen wen it E!ump E!umped ed oBE plain plaintiB tiB;; appellant on 'ovem!er ), 1()*, and in addition treated treated im rudely and arro"antly as a Epatay "utom na contract wor/er $"tin" +orean Air Lines,E wic clearly sows malice and

!ad fait, tus entitlin" plaintiB;appellant to moral dama"es. c. Considerin" tat te plaintiB;appellants entitlement to moral dama"es as !een fully esta!lised !y oral and documentary evidence, e@emplary dama"es may !e awarded. =n fact, e@emplary dama"es may !e awarded, even tou" not so e@pressly pleaded in te complaint. Gy

te same to/en, to provide an e@ample for te pu!lic "ood, an award of e@emplary dama"es is also proper. A review of te record of tis case sows tat te inDury suBered !y Lapuz is not so serious or e@tensive as to warrant an award of #1.2 million. Te assessment of #1**,*** as moral and e@emplary dama"es in is favor is, in our view, reasona!le and realistic.