Case No. 10 HernandoBar
Case No. 10 GR No. 212136 2021-10-04
KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. DR. JOSE M. TIONGCO HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine:
The issues raised in the instant petition are factual in nature which [are not] subject to review under Rule 45 of tbe Rules of Court.
Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court is not a trier of facts. Hence, it is not our function to re-evaluate the probative value of the evidence of both parties which were already considered in the proceedings below.
The parameters of a judicial review under a Rule 45 petition is discussed in Miro v. Vda. De Eredoros, viz.:
(a.) Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law;
(b.) Rule 45 petition is limited to errors of the appellate court.
 |
| Get Paid to Promote Your Favorite Brands Online; The Biginner's Handbook |
This Court will not review facts, as it is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below.
As held in Diokno v. Hon. Cacdac, a re-examination of factual findings is outside the province of a petition for review on certiorari to wit:
It is aphoristic that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because as earlier stated, this Court is not a trier of facts. xxx The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This is already outside the province of the instant Petition for Certiorari.
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. Unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions, we are limited solely to the review of legal questions.
 |
| Register as Lodpost Writer for FREE |
Write and get paid for your articles every time your followers read them. Sign-up for FREE and follow our Facebook Pages for more information.
Furthermore, the "errors" which we may review in a petition for review on certiorari are those of the CA, and not directly those of the trial court or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which rendered the decision in the first instance. It is imperative that we refrain from conducting further scrutiny of the findings of fact made by trial courts, lest we convert this Court into a trier of facts.
As held in Reman Recio v. Heirs of the Spouses Agueda and Maria Altamirano etc. et al. our review is limited only to the errors of law committed by the appellate court, to wit:
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, jurisdiction is generally limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. The Supreme Court is not obliged to review an over again the evidence which the parties adduced in the court a quo. Of course, the general rule admits of exceptions, such as where the factual findings of the CA and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory.
However, the rule is not without exception. In Medina v. Asistio, Jr., the findings of fact of the CA may be passed upon and reviewed by this Court in the following instances:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
( 4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting:
( 6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.
Doctrine:
KLM is liable for breach of contract of carriage.
A contract of carriage is one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or goods from one place to another for a fixed price.
Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, a common carrier refers to "persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public."
The nature of the business which involves the transportation of persons or goods makes a contract of carriage imbued with public interest. It is therefore bound to observe not just the due diligence of a good father of a family but that of "extraordinary" care in the vigilance over the goods as required under Article 1733 of the Civil Code.
The nature of a contract of carriage is elucidated in Singson v. Court of Appeals in this wise:
A contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Imbued with public interest, common carriers are required by law to carry passengers safely as far a human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. And this is because its business is mainly with the traveling public. In invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Failure of the carrier to observe this high degree of care and extraordinary diligence renders it liable for any damage that may be sustained by its passengers.
Considering that a [contract] of carriage is vested with public interest, a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case of lost or damaged goods unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.
Hence, in an [action based on a breach of contract] of carriage, the aggrieved party does not need to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. He or she is [only] required to prove the [existence of] the contract [and] its non-performance by the carrier. (Emphasis supplied).
SPONSORED
Recommended Bar Review Materials in Remedial Law 📚
Doctrine:
Bad faith is a factual question which is beyond the purview of this petition under Rule 45.
Bad faith on the part of KLM
was duly established.
Both the trial court and the appellate court already found KLM to have acted in bad faith in dealing with Dr. Tiongco. Bad faith is a factual question which is beyond the purview of this petition under Rule 45. Thus, wre are not obliged to go over the evidence once more and recalibrate them for purposes of this appeal.
Doctrine:
The awards of moral and
exemplary damages are proper.
Under Article 2216 of the Civil Code, the assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case. The courts must adhere to the principle that the amount of damages awarded should not be palpably excessive as to indicate that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. It must therefore be fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the injury suffered.
The award of moral damages is proper to enable the injured party to obtain means of diversion or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering they underwent because of another's culpable action.
SPONSORED
Recommended Bar Review Materials in Commercial Law 📚
Domondon (2021) - Commercial Law Color Coded based on the 2021 Bar Examination Syllabus Codal Series https://go.shopple.co/sph9ta
Divina on Commercial Law Volume I (2021 Edition) Paper Bound https://go.shopple.co/sph9t8
Divina on Commercial Law Volume II (2021 Edition) Paper Bound https://go.shopple.co/sph9t6
Miravite (2022) Commercial Law Reviewer Bar Review Materials in 18th Edition Eighteenth by Jorge https://go.shopple.co/sph9td
Rondez (2021) - Commercial Law Bar Companion - Reviewer https://go.shopple.co/sph9tg
Villanueva Castro (2020) - Book 1 - Commercial Law Recap - Reviewer Book https://go.shopple.co/sph9tk
Villanueva Castro (2020) - Book 2 - Commercial Law Recap - Reviewer https://go.shopple.co/sph9u5
Aquino + Sundiang (2022) - Commercial Law, Reviewer on - by Timoteo and Dean Jose https://go.shopple.co/sph9tu
Questions & Answers of 2005-2021 Supreme Court Decisions in Commercial Law (2022 Edition) https://go.shopple.co/sph9tz
ANSWER TO BAR EXAMINATIONS QUESTIONS https://go.shopple.co/sph9u3
Cesar Villanueva (2020) - Commercial Law Review - Reviewer https://go.shopple.co/sph9u7
KLM is liable for temperate; not nominal damages.
Article 2221 of the Civil Code states that nominal damages may be awarded in order that the plaintiff's right, 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. They are "recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any.kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown."
On the other hand, Article 2224 of the same Code states that temperate damages or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty. Simply put, temperate damages are awarded when the injured party suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty.
Download full text here
Cases penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando PART 1 case no. 1 to 40 [FULLTEXT].pdf
Keep on checking our Link-in-Bio for updates
If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ADS once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
Comments
Post a Comment