Sarreal SR Vs Japan Airlines Co LTD

125. Sarreal, Sr. vs. Japan Airlines Co. Ltd.
(1992)
Lope Sarreal, Sr., petitioner, vs.

Japan Airlines Co., Ltd., and Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, respondent.
G.R. No. 75308, March 23, 1992. J. Gutierrez, Jr.:
FACTS: Lope Sarreal, Sr. purchased in Bangkok from Japan Air Lines (JAL) a ticket, having various foreign destinations
from Bangkok and back to Bangkok. As he was in Los Angleles, USA with his business representative Atty. Pol Tiglao,
and Luis Espada, the boxing manager of World Flyweight Boxing Champion Hilario Zapata where they were negotiating
a possible boxing match. Sarreal, Sr. then flew from Los Angeles to Tokyo. At the Narita Airport Office, the Sarreal, Sr.
inquired if there was a JAL flight from Bangkok to Manila on July 2, 1980. The JAL lady employee looked into her
scheduled book put a stamp on the petitioner's ticket and told him not to worry because she has endorsed his JAL
ticket to Thai International leaving Bangkok on July 2, 1980 for Manila. Relying on the assurance of the lady employee,
the petitioner then proceeded to Bangkok. However, in the morning of July 2, 1980, when the petitioner was about to
board the said Thai International, he was not allowed to board the said plane through it had available seats because he
was told that his ticket was not endorseable. Since the petitioner failed to reach Manila by July 2, 1980, Espada
cancelled his transaction with the petitioner and decided to have the champion fight in Japan instead. Had the
petitioner been able to reach Manila on July 2, 1980, he could have earned a lot. This led the petitioner to file an action
for damages with the Regional Trail Court (RTC ), Pasay City against private respondent JAL premised on the breach of
contract of carriage. The RTC of Pasay City rendered a decision against JAL which was reversed on appeal.
ISSUE: Whether JAL is liable
HELD: In finding for the petitioner, the lower court held that JAL through the lady employee at Narita Airport had
endorsed petitioner's ticket to Thai International on its July 2, 1980 10:30 A.M. scheduled flight. Assuming that
petitioner's ticket was not at all endorsed to Thai International, the petitioner was nevertheless assured of a seat in
Thai International by the JAL lady employee. JAL was held liable for breaching the contract of carriage entered into
when it issued the ticket to the petitioner. JAL undertook the obligation to carry petitioner to his destination. The trial
court ruled that since on July 2, 1980, JAL had no flight schedule from Bangkok to Manila, the request made by the lady
employee of JAL to Thai International to accommodate petitioner in the latter's flight No. 620 on July 2, 1980 for
Bangkok to Manila and the undisputed assurance by the said lady employee that petitioner would have a seat in that
flight became definitely part of that contract of carriage.
This argument is not based on the records. The evidence on record, reveals that the ticket bears no endorsement at all
nor an assurance that petitioner would get a seat in Thai International flight from Bangkok to Manila on July 2. The
ticket purchased by the petitioner was a discounted one and as testified by the JAL Traffic Supervisor, it was not
endorseable. We agree with the respondent court that the assurance made by the lady employee to the petitioner was
merely the latter's chances of getting a seat in Thai International flight from Bangkok to Manila considering that from
the data gathered by said lady employee, Thai International on the average runs about half full on its flight from
Bangkok to Manila. It was from this reliable information that petitioner decided to make the side trip to Bangkok. There
was no assurance from the lady employee nor from Thai International that the petitioner's ticket would be honored by
the airline. (Rollo, p. 34)
The stub that the lady employee put on the petitioner's ticket showed among other coded items, under the column
"status" the letters "RQ" which was understood to mean "Request". Clearly, this does not mean a confirmation but
only a request. JAL Traffic Supervisor explained that it would have been different if what was written on the stub were
the letters "ok" in which case the petitioner would have been assured of a seat on said flight. But in this case, the
petitioner was more of a wait-listed passenger than a regularly booked passenger.
The petitioner is said to be a well-traveled person who average two long trips to Europe and two trips to Bangkok every
month since 1945. He claims to have used practically all the airlines but mostly Philippine Airlines whenever he travels
abroad in connection with his occupation as international boxing matchmaker and manager of world- champion boxers.
(Rollo, p. 64) Certainly, a man of such stature was aware of the restrictions carried by his ticket and the usual
procedure that goes with traveling. The petitioner ought to know that it was still necessary to verify first from Thai
International if they would honor the endorsment of his JAL ticket or confirm with the airline if he had a seat in the July
2 flight. The petitioner left Narita on June 26, 1980. He was scheduled to leave for Manila on July 2, 1980. It is standard
procedure for any passenger with a two day stop over in a foreign city to confirm the validity of his ticket and the
availability of a seat on his next flight out of that city. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to take these standard
precautions. JAL cannot now be faulted for the petitioner's omission or negligence.

Sarreal SR Vs Japan Airlines Co LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sarreal SR Vs Japan Airlines Co LTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sarreal SR Vs Japan Airlines Co LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

125. Sarreal, Sr. vs. Japan Airlines Co. Ltd.

Lope Sarreal, Sr., petitioner, vs.

ISSUE: Whether JAL is liable

You might also like