Savellano v Northwest Airlines

Facts:
Savellano, ex-Mayor and former Chairman of COMELEC and wife were expected to arrive at NAIA after
12 hours of travel coming from Seattle. The plane made an emergency landing because a fire started in
one of the engines.

They passengers were brought to a hotel. At around midnight, they were awakened by a phone call from
Northwest's personnel saying that they would be take a Seattle-Tokyo-Manila route on the flight back to
Manila the next day. Upon arrival at the airport they were again advised that they would take an
alternative and longer route (Seattle - Los Angeles - Seoul- Manila) back to Manila.

Meanwhile, the other passengers took the first route. Upon arrival of Savellano at Manila, they were
teased for taking the longer and tiresome route. They also discovered that their luggage had been
ransacked and the contents stolen.

Savellano demanded damages on the ground that they suffered inconvenience, embarrassment and
humiliation for taking the longer route.

Issue:
1.Whether or not the bump-off was a breach of the air carriage contract
2. Whether or not Savellano is entitled to actual, moral and exemplary damages.

Held:
1. Yes. In the condition of the airline ticket, there is nothing authorizing Northwest to decide unilaterally
what other stopping places Savellano should take and when they should fly. Substituting aircraft without
notice is entirely different from changing stopping places or connecting cities without notice. Also,
Northwest failed to show a case of necessity for changing the stopping place.

2. On moral damages: Northwest is not guilty of bad faith. It appears that the passengers of the
distressed flight were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group taking the first route and the other taking
the longer route of flight. The selection of who was to take the flight was handled via computer reservation
system. Savellano failed to present convincing evidence to back the allegation that Northwest was guilty
of bad faith.

On exemplary damages, it is not proper. The unexpected and sudden requirement of having to arrange
connecting flights in just a few hours, in addition to the Northwest employees' normal workload was
difficult to satisfy perfectly. Northwest is not liable for its imperfection of neglecting to consult with
passengers beforehand.

Nominal damages are awarded in this case. The court considered that Savellano suffered the
inconvenience of having to wake up early to catch the flight and that they were business class
passengers who paid more for better service. It also considered Savellano's social and official status. The
court awarded P150,000 as nominal damages in order to vindicate and recognize their right to be notified
and consulted.

Notes:
*The rulings of Lopez, Zulueta and Ortigas are not applicable in this case there is no showing that the
breach was done with the same entrepreneurial motive as in Lopez or with ill-will as in Zulueta and
Ortigas.

*Good faith is presumed while bad faith is a matter of fact that needs to be proved by the party alleging it.