Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Zulueta Vs Pam Am

    Uploaded by

    cagrns
    This is a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court case from February 19, 1976 that ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were Fausto Zulueta, his wife, and daughter seeking damages from defendant Pan American World Airways for breach of carriage contract. This occurred when Zulueta left the plane to use the bathroom and was delayed returning. Upon his return, the captain confronted Zulueta in an arrogant manner, which led to an altercation. As a result, the captain had the Zuluetas removed from the plane in a desolate island. The court addressed 5 issues: 1) Jurisdiction over damages exceeding 10,000 pesos, 2) Excessiveness of

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zulueta Vs Pam Am

    Uploaded by

    cagrns
    26 views2 pages
    This is a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court case from February 19, 1976 that ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were Fausto Zulueta, his wife, and daughter seeking damages from defendant Pan American World Airways for breach of carriage contract. This occurred when Zulueta left the plane to use the bathroom and was delayed returning. Upon his return, the captain confronted Zulueta in an arrogant manner, which led to an altercation. As a result, the captain had the Zuluetas removed from the plane in a desolate island. The court addressed 5 issues: 1) Jurisdiction over damages exceeding 10,000 pesos, 2) Excessiveness of

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Zulueta vs Pam Am

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This is a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court case from February 19, 1976 that ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were Fausto Zulueta, his wife, and daughter seeking damages from defendant Pan American World Airways for breach of carriage contract. This occurred when Zulueta left the plane to use the bathroom and was delayed returning. Upon his return, the captain confronted Zulueta in an arrogant manner, which led to an altercation. As a result, the captain had the Zuluetas removed from the plane in a desolate island. The court addressed 5 issues: 1) Jurisdiction over damages exceeding 10,000 pesos, 2) Excessiveness of

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    26 views2 pages

    Zulueta Vs Pam Am

    Uploaded by

    cagrns
    This is a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court case from February 19, 1976 that ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were Fausto Zulueta, his wife, and daughter seeking damages from defendant Pan American World Airways for breach of carriage contract. This occurred when Zulueta left the plane to use the bathroom and was delayed returning. Upon his return, the captain confronted Zulueta in an arrogant manner, which led to an altercation. As a result, the captain had the Zuluetas removed from the plane in a desolate island. The court addressed 5 issues: 1) Jurisdiction over damages exceeding 10,000 pesos, 2) Excessiveness of

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Caption: Ponente: Date: Topic: Facts:

    Zulueta vs. Pam American World Airways, Inc. Concepcion, C.J. January 8, 197 Properties t!at compose t!e CP"

    #!is is motion $or reconsideration $or a case decided %y t!e &upreme Court on 'e%ruary (9, 197( t!at ruled in $avor o$ t!e plainti$$s. Plainti$$s were )a$ael Zulueta, !is wi$e, and !is dau*!ter. #!ey sou*!t to recover dama*es +actual, moral, e,emplary, and attorney-s $ees. %ased on t!e %reac! o$ contract o$ carria*e committed %y de$endant. #!is !appened w!en Zulueta le$t t!e plane and went to t!e %eac! in order to answer t!e call o$ nature. /pon returnin* to t!e plane +delayed %y (01 0 minutes., Zulueta came across Capt. Zentner, w!o was already remonstratin* at !im in an intemperate and arro*ant tone and attitude +as2in*, 3W!at do you t!in2 you are45.. #!is impelled Zulueta to answer %ac2. As a conse6uence, t!ere immediately ensued an altercation %etween t!e two men. #!en, Capt. Zentner ordered to o$$1load all o$ t!e Zuluetas, )a$ael, wi$e and dau*!ter and le$t t!em in a desolate island. +7urin* t!e pendency o$ t!e action, wi$e separated wit! !er !us%and. &!e also !ad a compromise a*reement, amountin* to 80,000, wit! t!e de$endant. Issues: +Assi*nment o$ errors. 1. 7oes t!e lower court !ave 9urisdiction over t!e case considerin* t!at t!e actual dama*es did not amount to more t!an P!p10000 as settled in doctrines o$ t!e :onora%le Court4 (. Is t!e amount o$ dama*es e,cessive4 . 7o t!e plainti$$s !ave t!e ri*!t to recover e,emplary dama*es considerin* t!at t!e de$endants did not act wit! 3*ross ne*li*ence5 %ased on stated in Article (( 1 o$ t!e Civil Code4 ;. 7o t!e plainti$$s !ave t!e ri*!t to recover attorney-s $ees4 5. Is the compromise agreement between the wife and the defendant effective (therefore, amounts to the dismissa of the case!" #e d: 1. <es. 'irst, t!e de$endants erred w!en it ar*ued t!at 3unspeci$ied sums representin* items or ot!er alle*ed dama*es may not %e considered5 +t!e still unspeci$ied sums o$ t!e moral, e,emplary, and attorney-s $ees.. #!ey only too2 t!e actual dama*es as t!e %asis $or suc! ar*ument +actual dama*es = 880(.88.. &econd, claim $or moral dama*es is one not suscepti%le o$ pecuniary estimation, and is le$t at t!e discretion o$ t!e court. #!ird, t!e de$endants also $iled a counter1claim amountin* to 1(000> t!ere$ore wit!in t!e ori*inal 9urisdiction o$ t!e court. (. ?o. #!e Zuluetas !ad a contract o$ carria*e wit! t!e de$endant. 'or a su%stantial monetary consideration +payment o$ t!e Zuluetas., t!e de$endant is %ound not merely to transport t!em to @anila, %ut also to do so wit! e,traordinary dili*ence or utmost dili*ence. In t!e present case, t!e de$endant did not only $ail to comply wit! its o%li*ation to transport @r. Zulueta to @anila, %ut, also acted in a manner calculated to !umiliate !im, to c!astise !im, to ma2e !im su$$er, to cause !im t!e *reatest inconvenience, %y leavin* !im in a desolate island. "iven t!ese circumstances, it could %e said t!at t!e amount o$ dama*es +700,000., w!ic! was %arely e6uivalent A100,000, was not e,cessive. . <es. Article (( 1 o$ t!e Civil Code does not allow one to recover e,emplary dama*es in 6uasi1delicts e,cept w!en t!e de$endant acted wit! 3*ross ne*li*ence.5 #!e Court, !owever,

    reasoned t!at i$ 3*ross ne*li*ence5 warrants t!e award o$ e,emplary dama*es, t!en, wit! more reason, is its imposition 9usti$ied w!en t!e act per$ormed is deli%erate, malicious, and tainted wit! %ad $ait!. ;. <es. #!e law is clear. Article ((08 o$ t!e Civil Code e,pressly aut!oriBes t!e award o$ attorney-s $ees 3w!en e,emplary dama*es are awarded.5 &ince it was esta%lis!ed in t!e t!ird rulin* t!at t!e plainti$$s can recover e,emplary dama*es, t!en t!ey are allowed to recover attorney-s $ees. 5. $es and %o. The payment involved in the compromise agreement is effective . It is deductib e from the award given b& the Court. #ence, the '((,((( award of damages wi on & be )5(,((( when the 5(,((( pa&ment from the compromise agreement is deducted. The compromise agreement itself, however, is not effective. It is not effective in re ation to con*uga partnership. +rtic e ,,- of the Civi Code states that, .the husband must be *oined in a suits b& or against the wife e/cept: / / / (0! If the& have been in fact been separated for at east one &ear.1 This provision, according to the Court, is on & app icab e to suits where the wife is the principa un i2e the case where the damages to the wife on & resu ted from the humi iation her wife was sub*ected. The damages in 3uestion arose from a breach of contract of carriage. The pa&ment of which is presumed to be ong to the con*uga partnership. #ence, the damages fa under +rtic e ,5- (,! for having been ac3uired b& onerous tit e during the marriage. The damages invo ved in the case at bar do not come under an& of the provisions of +rtic e ,45 or of the other provisions forming part of Chapter -, Tit e 6I, of 7oo2 I of the Civi Code, which is entit ed .Parapherna Propert&.1 #ence, it is part of the con*uga partnership. 8oreover, if that which is ac3uired b& right of redemption or b& e/change with other propert& be onging to on & one of the spouses and that which is purchased with e/c usive mone& of the wife or of the husband be ong e/c usive & to such wife or husband, then it fo ows that what is ac3uired with mone& of con*uga partnership be ongs thereto or forms part thereof.

    You might also like