Airlines Cannot Discriminate When Providing Assistance to Stranded Passengers

G.R. No. 120262, July 17, 1997

Imagine being stuck in an airport due to a canceled flight, only to watch other passengers receive hotel accommodations while you’re left to fend for yourself. This scenario highlights a critical aspect of airline passenger rights in the Philippines: airlines must not discriminate when providing assistance to stranded passengers. The case of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Leovegildo A. Pantejo sheds light on this obligation, emphasizing that airlines have a duty to treat all passengers fairly, especially when flights are disrupted due to unforeseen circumstances.

This case revolves around a passenger who was denied hotel accommodations after his connecting flight was canceled due to a typhoon, while other passengers received such assistance. The central legal question is whether the airline acted in bad faith by failing to provide equal treatment, thereby entitling the aggrieved passenger to damages.

Understanding the Legal Duty of Air Carriers

In the Philippines, the relationship between an airline and its passengers is governed by the principles of common carriage. This means that airlines have a heightened responsibility to ensure the safety and comfort of their passengers. Article 1755 of the Civil Code explicitly states this duty:

“A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.”

Furthermore, Article 21 of the Civil Code provides a broader basis for claiming damages when one suffers loss due to another’s actions contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. This is coupled with Article 2219(10) which specifies that moral damages may be recovered in acts and actions referred to in Article 21.

When a flight is canceled due to force majeure (an unforeseen event), airlines are not automatically liable for damages. However, they are expected to provide reasonable assistance to stranded passengers. This assistance can include meals, accommodations, and rebooking options. The key here is equal treatment; airlines cannot arbitrarily favor some passengers over others without justifiable reasons.

The Story of Leovegildo Pantejo vs. Philippine Airlines

Leovegildo Pantejo, then a City Fiscal of Surigao City, found himself stranded in Cebu City on October 23, 1988, after his connecting Philippine Airlines (PAL) flight to Surigao City was canceled due to Typhoon Osang. PAL initially offered a cash assistance of P100, later increased to P200, for a two-day stay in Cebu.

Pantejo requested hotel accommodations at PAL’s expense, explaining that he lacked sufficient cash. PAL refused, forcing him to share a hotel room with a fellow passenger, promising to reimburse his share later. On October 25, Pantejo discovered that PAL had reimbursed the hotel expenses of two other passengers, Superintendent Ernesto Gonzales and Mrs. Gloria Rocha. Upset by this apparent discrimination, Pantejo confronted PAL’s manager, Oscar Jereza, and threatened legal action. Only then did Jereza offer Pantejo P300, which he declined due to the distress he had already experienced.

Pantejo filed a lawsuit against PAL, and the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City ruled in his favor, awarding him damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, albeit excluding attorney’s fees. PAL then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court highlighted several key findings:

• Sky View Hotel had available rooms, contradicting PAL’s claim of non-availability.
• The P300 given to Ernesto Gonzales was indeed for hotel and meal expenses, not a refund for his ticket.
• Other passengers learned about reimbursements through word of mouth, indicating a lack of transparency.
• PAL offered Pantejo P300 only after he threatened a lawsuit, suggesting an attempt to cover up the discrimination.

The Supreme Court emphasized PAL’s discriminatory conduct:

“Assuming arguendo that the airline passengers have no vested right to these amenities in case a flight is cancelled due to force majeure, what makes petitioner liable for damages in this particular case and under the facts obtaining herein is its blatant refusal to accord the so-called amenities equally to all its stranded passengers who were bound for Surigao City. No compelling or justifying reason was advanced for such discriminatory and prejudicial conduct.”

The Court concluded that PAL acted in bad faith and upheld the award of damages, underscoring the importance of fair treatment for all passengers.

Practical Implications: What This Means for Passengers and Airlines

This case reinforces the principle that airlines must treat all passengers equally, especially during flight disruptions. While airlines are not always liable for cancellations due to force majeure, they have a responsibility to provide reasonable and non-discriminatory assistance. Passengers who experience unfair treatment may have grounds to seek damages.

Airlines should ensure transparency and consistency in their policies for assisting stranded passengers. This includes clearly communicating the available options and providing equal access to accommodations, meals, and other amenities. Documenting all assistance provided can also help mitigate potential legal challenges.

Key Lessons

• Airlines must not discriminate when providing assistance to stranded passengers.
• Passengers have the right to fair and equal treatment, especially during flight disruptions.
• Transparency and consistency in airline policies are crucial to avoid legal liability.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What should I do if my flight is canceled?

A: Immediately inquire about your options for rebooking, refunds, or accommodations. Document all communication with the airline and keep records of any expenses incurred.

Q: Am I entitled to compensation if my flight is delayed or canceled due to bad weather?

A: Generally, airlines are not liable for delays or cancellations due to force majeure. However, they are still obligated to provide reasonable assistance, such as meals and accommodations.

Q: What constitutes discrimination by an airline?

A: Discrimination occurs when an airline provides different levels of assistance or treatment to passengers without a valid justification. This could include providing hotel accommodations to some passengers but not others, or offering different rebooking options.

Q: How can I file a complaint against an airline for unfair treatment?

A: You can file a complaint with the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in the Philippines. Be sure to include all relevant documentation, such as your ticket, boarding pass, and any communication with the airline.

Q: What kind of damages can I claim if an airline discriminates against me?

A: You may be able to claim actual damages (e.g., out-of-pocket expenses), moral damages (for emotional distress), and exemplary damages (to punish the airline for its misconduct).

Q: Does this apply to all airlines in the Philippines?

A: Yes, this principle applies to all common carriers operating in the Philippines, including airlines.

ASG Law specializes in airline passenger rights and transportation law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.