ANICETO G. SALUDO, ET AL vs. CA, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC.

, and
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., G.R. No. 95536 March 23, 1992

Facts:
After the death of petitioner’s mother, Crispina Saludo, in Chicago Illinois, whose
body was arranged to be transported from Chicago to San Francisco via
Transworld Airlines to Manila to Cebu via PAL, TWA mistakenly sent the body to
Mexico instead of San Francisco because they switched Crispina’s remains with
another person’s remains. This caused the delay in the receipt of the Saludo family
of their mother’s body. Thus, petitioners filed a complaint against TWA and PAL
contending that as common carriers, they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence
when they misship and eventually delayed the delivery of the remains. Thus, a
damage suit6 was filed by petitioners before the then Court of First Instance,
praying for the award of actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

Issue:
Whether petitioners, as a consequence of the delay in the shipment of their
mother's remains entitled to actual, moral, and exemplary damages as well as
attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

Ruling:
No. moral damages may be awarded for willful or fraudulent breach of
contract 71 or when such breach is attended by malice or bad faith. 72 However, in
the absence of strong and positive evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith, said
damages cannot be awarded.73 Neither can there be an award of exemplary
damages 74 nor of attorney's fees 75 as an item of damages in the absence of proof
that defendant acted with malice, fraud or bad faith.

The censurable conduct of TWA's employees cannot, however, be said to have

approximated the dimensions of fraud, malice, or bad faith. Nonetheless, the facts
show that petitioners' right to be treated with due courtesy in accordance with the
degree of diligence required by law to be exercised by every common carrier was
violated by TWA and this entitles them, at least, to nominal damages from TWA
alone. Articles 2221 and 2222 of the Civil Code make it clear that nominal damages
are not intended for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or
recognition of a right violated or invaded. They are recoverable where some injury
has been done but the amount of which the evidence fails to show, the assessment
of damages being left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances
of the case.