100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 17 - 19 out of 66 pages.
respect to attorney’s fees, we uphold the appellate court’s finding on lack of factual and legal justification to award attorney’s fees.We however sustain the award of nominal damages in the amount of P25,000.00 to only three of the four respondents who were aggrieved by the last-minute cancellation of their flights. Nominaldamages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated againstan 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.21Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.Considering that the three respondents were denied boarding their return flight from HongKong to Manila and that they had to wait in the airport overnight for their return flight, they are deemedto have technically suffered injury. Nonetheless, they failed to present proof of actual damages. Consequently, they should be compensated in the form of nominal damages.The amount to be awarded as nominal damages shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained by respondents considering the concept and purpose of such damages. The amount of nominal damages to be awarded may also depend on certain special reasons extant in the case.22The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and taking into account the relevant circumstances,23such as the failure of some respondents to board the flight on schedule and the slight breach in the legal obligations of the airline company to comply with the terms of the contract, i.e., the airplane ticket and of the travel agency to make the correct bookings. We find the award of P25,000.00 to the Reyeses correct and proper.Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel acted together in creating the confusion in the bookings which led to the erroneous cancellation of respondents’ bookings. Their negligence is the proximate cause of the technical injury sustained by respondents. Therefore, they have become joint tortfeasors, whose responsibility for quasi-delict, under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, is solidary.Based on the foregoing, Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel are jointly and solidarily liable fornominal damages awarded to respondents Wilfredo, Juanita and Michael Roy.WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The 22 October 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that Sampaguita Travel is held to be solidarily liable with Cathay Pacific in the payment of nominal damages of ~25,000.00 each for Wilfredo Reyes, Juanita Reyes, and Michael Rox Reyes. The complaint of respondent Sixta Lapuz is DISMISSEDfor lack of cause of action.