Republic of the PhilippinesNational ]udicial RegionBegionut @rful @ourt

ManilaTBrarcIl

ATTY. BERTENI CATALUNA CAUSING,Plaintiff,

- versus -

CEBU AI& INC. also knourn asCEBU PACIFIC AIR oT CEBU PACIFIC,

Defendant.x-------

1.

CivirCaseN. 1312I473

------------x

@omplsiilt

The complainant, by himself, respectfully files this complaintautl in pursuance thereof the eauses of action are narrated hereunder.

@be lBeifiies

The complainan! BERTENI CATALUNIA CAUSING, is alawyer by profession who, in partnership with fellowlawyers, holds his private law office at his resiclence at unitL, No. 2368 Leon Guinto st. corner IB Roxas st., Malate,Manila, where he may be served with notices and otherprocesses.

A11 other details of his being a lawyer are written below hisname at the end of the body of this Complaint.

llilage

I 3' The defendant is Cebu Air, Inc., that is k,ow, popurarly asCebu Pacific Air or Cebu pacific, whose principar office ofbusiness is at Airline operations Cent"., Dorrestic Road,1301 Pasay City, where it may be served summons ancl otherprocesses of this court.

4. The general manager of the Chief Executive officer (CEo) ofthe respondent is Lance y. Gokongwei, wrro may be servedat his office in that giI:" ad"clress personally or bysubstituted service through his office staffers o. se.ret ary ifpersonal service of summons cannot be had, o=po.,persons who may be relied upon to appreciate theimportance of the papers served o, hi.r-, in accordance withthe doctrine announced in viila Rey Transit tt. Fnr. Enst MotorCorporntion, G.R. No. L_g7ggg, Jai-ruary Zl, lg7g, where aservice on assistant general manager was held as proper onthe corporation; and in dozens of other case raws tr-rat ruled.

5. There is almost nothing in the Internet that shows who arethe corporate secretary, keasurer and in-house counsel ofthe defendant, the reason that the plaintiff cannot nameanyone of them as also proper persons to be servecl on forthe summons of this case.

6.

7.

8.

T,be nmls

At 6 to 8 pm, the plaintiff went to the Bureau of Imrnigrationjail at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig to talk to hisclientKimHanJuregardinghiscaseforaIpJ.tuiion.-

At 8:30 pm, he arrived at his office-resider-rce at unit 1, No.2368 Leon Guinto st. corner JB Roxas st., Malate, Ma,ila.

since thery the plaintiff attended to his clie'ts at his office,including the interviewing and examinatio. of witnesses forthe judicial affidavits to b" pr.uunted at the Metropolitan

2lf,nq*

t-

Trial Court of Las Piflas, Branch 79, to prove the merit of hismotion to quash.

9. Among the pleadings he wrote during that night were thejudicial affidavits of witnesses Leonardo L. Mateo andCandido L. Mateo Jr., manifestation to set for hearingPetition for Bail of Kim Han Ju and motion to set hearing themotion to dismiss of the case People vs. saturnino Grutas,Criminal Case Nos. 11-281562.

10.The plaintiff completed the examination of Leonardo L.Mateo and Candido L. Mateo Jr. and the writing of theirjudicial affidavits at 1:00 a.m. of 12 February 2A12.

11.As a measure of diligence and prudence, the plaintiffdecided not to sleep for fear that he may not be able to wakeup in time to take his scheduled 5:20 a.m. flight with CebuPacific for General Santos City.

12.His flight details are as follows:

Flight: No. 5J-991Time of departure: 520Hours (meaning, S:20 a.m.)Date of departure: 12 February 2013, TuesdayArrival at Gensan: 710Hours (meaning, T:70 a.m.)Route: Manila City to General Santos City

13.The plaintiff packed up his travelling bag and fixed hiscomputer bag to bring the case folder and other cases for hehad pleadings to write on, these acts he did to also takeadvantage of the lull time up to 3:00 a.m., his schecluled timeof leaving from his office-residence to go to Ninoy AquinoInternational Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3 to check in for thesame flight.

3 | lr',*i1t:

rfrti

"j,.Tr;]4Fry --n

t

14. At 3:00 a.m., the plaintiff was fetched from his office-residence to the airport by his staffers, Jomar J. Fantillan,Ronelo Cesumision, and Hernani e. Cuare.

15. About3:20 a.m. or so, the plaintiff checked in at the check-incounter of Cebu Pacific for General Santos City.

15. During the transactions at the check-in counter, the plaintiffhad an issue with the check-in personnel as to whether ornot he should have his baggage checked in, too, because hewanted to handcarry the travelling bag.

77. The check-in personnel suggested that the plaintiff shouldcheck in his baggage because it was more than seven (7)kilograms.

18. Despite the plaintiff's insistence that he should handcarrythe traveling bag because he wanted no delay in checkingout of the airport at General santos City because he wasafraid the delay may cause him to be late in his scheduled8:30 a.m. hearing at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,Branch 2, tn that city,-for the case entitled "people of thePhilippines vs. Abdul Macalao Arsad," Criminar Case No.50966-2.

19. Nevertheless, the plaintiff gave in and he had histraveling bag checked in.

20. As a result, the plaintiff paid Four Hundred Eighty EightPesos (P488.00) for the excess baggage.

21. The counter girl at the cashier's row issued the plaintiff aCebu Pacific receipt as evidence of his payment for theexcess baggage.

4 I {l ,: n *I I l !,ll'1\"

22. As an evidence of this payment, he attaches hereto asEXHIBIT " A" a copy of Cebu Pacific Office Receipt No.2845007 dated 12 Feb 13 signed by cashier collector in asignature that is legible as "Julie."

23. Now, that the plaintiff had already checked in, thecounter-girl at the same cash counter issued the plaintiff alsohis boarding pass in two pieces of thermal paper, copies ofthis boarding pass are attached hereto as EXHIBIT "8" artdEXHIBIT "8.1,."

24. Thereafter the plaintiff proceeded to the x-ray scanningmachine before finally going to the assigned boarcling gate.

25. "Gate No.: 134" ln/as written on the boarding pass as theboarding gate assigned to the plaintiff as a flyer to GeneralSantos City on board 5J-991.

26. upon arrival at the lobby area of Gate No. 134 at about 3:30a.m., the plaintiff sat on one of the seats in the second rowfacing the gate and that seat was just about five seats fromthe left end of the rows of seats.

27. The plaintiff sat and in a little while, he felt sleepy that heimmediately positioned his self to take a nap covering threeseats and the plaintiff closed my eyes.

28. The next thing the plaintiff knew was when he woke upand he saw there was already daylight jusf outside the gate,considering that the gate and the walls are macle of clearglass.

29. The plaintiff asked the people he saw as his seatmates onwhether the flight for General Santos City had already left.

30. They told the plaintiff that the plane already left and oneof them even told him that she was inclined to wake me up

5li';rq1P

as they heard a name being paged or announcecl to proceedto the boarding gate No. 134.

31. Then the plaintiff thought of raking a photo of him sittingat the lobby seat area in front of Boarding Gate No. 134 andthe plaintiff asked a woman passenger to do so for him andshe took a shot of me using my Samsung Galaxy cellularphone.

32. The photo is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "C."

33. After that, the plaintiff glanced at his cellular phone againand it showed there that the time after the taking of thepicture was 7:01 a.m.

34. Now, to make sure whether the plane had left, theplaintiff stood up and proceeded to the nearby gate counterswhere he saw dozens of staffers of Cebu Pacific.

35. The plaintiff asked all of them and they confirmed to himthat the plane for General Santos City had already left.

36. They asked for the plaintiff's name and after he gave itthey checked on the computer and they saicl that theplaintiff's name was announced many times but the plaintiffnever showed up.

37. The plaintiff countered that it was not enougl'L for them tojust be contented to announcing names because thosepassengers who involuntarily fell asleep cannot hearwhatever announcements they would make.

38. The plaintiff also lectured the staffers that at least theyexercised more diligence by tapping the shouklers of allthose who fell asleep at Boarding Gate No. 134.

6lFag*

39. The plaintiff continued his lecture that between thosewho are asleep and those who are awake, tl-rose who areawake who have the obligation to attend to the passengershave the obligation to wake up those who are asleep.

40. The plaintiff also insisted that because he already checkedin as early as 3:30 a.m. while the departure time was yet 5:20a.m. and that the plaintiff in fact checked in his baggage, theonly reason after eliminating all other possibilities that hedid not show up to the announcement should only be thathe fell asleep.

4'1,. And if the only conclusion left when the passenger beingannounced did not show up is he or she was asleep, theyshould have at least the temerity to wake up all passengerssleeping at the lobby seats in front of Boarding Gate No. 134;

42. The plaintiff made clear to them that their contracts ofcarriage are clothed with public interest that they areobligated to perform their best to serve the passengers andensure that the purposes of the contract of carriage isfulfilled.

43. The airlines such as Cebu Pacific have the utmost dutythe people who place the fate of their lives ancl comfortsthe hands of these airline companies.

44. Then the plaintiff took several shots of the Cebu Pacificpersonnel through the same cellular phone and a copy ofone of these photos is attached hereto as EXHIBIT "D."

45. The plaintiff also took photos of the lobby area in front ofBoarding Gate No. 134 and copies of these photos areattached hereto as ANNEXT'E" series.

toin

TlPaf;rt

55. Aside from the client in that case, whose client's name isAbdul Macalao Arsad, the plaintiff also felt embarrassedbecause the plaintiff had an appointment to meet with newclients that he recommended to me and he was contracted tobe hired with an acceptance fee of Two Hundred ThousandPesos (P200,000.00);

56. After that hearing at the MTCC, the plaintiff had also ascheduled meeting with his other client, retired ColonelKadil Masahod and Roger D. Deocampo;

57. A11 these meetings were put to naught ancl the plaintiffwas embarrassed, too, and this contributed to his fears,anxieties and besmirched reputation.

58. The plaintiff is a lawyer by profession and he is a memberof Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Manila IV Chapter andhis roll no. is 6A944.

59. The plaintiff has updated his IBP membership, paid hisProfessional Tax, and complied with the MandatoryContinuing Legal Education as MCLE No. IV 007gZBissued 10 August2012.

60. As a lawyer, lawyers' life depends on reputation with theclients and some of the community who would have hire hisservices.

61. on the part of the plaintiff, he charges for acceptance feesof P200,000.00.

62. Now, the omission of the defendant in not waking up theplaintiff was deliberate because, as the plaintiff learned, it isthe policy of the defendant not to wake up a1'ry sleepingpassenger who had already checked in and who may be left

9li:);rgr:

sr"$'lI

behind as long as announcements had already been made bytheir personnel.

63.It is also revolting to the conscience not to exert more effortsto comply with the law that requires all common carrierslike the defendant to observe extraordinary diligence.

64.rn this case, the defendant kept at their limited policy of justannouncing the names of the passengers who have alreadychecked in for final departure procedure ancl if thesepassengers do not show rp, that is all the defendant'spersonnel need to decide to leave behind the "missing"passengers.

65.To prove these facts further, the plaintiff executed anaffidavit that he attaches hereto as ANNEX,H,, series.

@bt {,auEeE o[ E{rtforr

66.Because of breach of the contract of carriage, the plaintiff hasa cause for actual damages in the form of the following:

a. Actual cost of the ticket the plaintiff bought from thedefendant in the amount of 73,11C , 88 ;

b. Actual cost of the baggage payments made by theplaintiff in the u*orrlt of Fo.rr Hundrecl Eighty-EightPesos (Pa88.00);

c. Actual damages for the Terminal Fee paid by theplaintiff in the amount of Two Hundred pesos

(P200.00);

L0 li),:14*

fl"e

d. Actual damages as payment for the gasoline anddriver in going to Ninoy Aquino International Airport(NAIA) Terminal 3 in the reasonable amount of FiveHundred Pesos (P500.00);

e. Actual damages for the taxicab the plaintiff tookreturning to his office-residence from the NAIA 3the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00);

f. Actual damages of paying the toll fee of P20 in goingto the airpor! and

g. Another P20 toll fee in going home to his office-residence.

6T.Because the defendant did not give the correspondingservices of taking the plaintiff from Manila to General SantosCity, for which the plaintiff pard, the defendant had theobligation to return the amount paid by the plaintiff for thesaid ticket.

68.The defendant did nof return the money of the plaintiff andit will not return because it has the policy of no ride norefund, in disrespect of that right of the plaintiff.

69.The defendant also has the obligation to return the fee paidby the plaintiff for the baggage because the baggage was notloaded on to the plane, anyway

TO.Despite this obligation, the defendant did not even have thetemerity to refund the same amount.

71.The defendant also has the obligation to refund the terminalfee paid by the plaintiff as required of each of all passengers.

inin

1L li}age

I

72.The obligation to refund the terminal fee was constitutedbecause it did not benefit the plaintiff anyway because hewas not allowed to ride the plane for which he paid for theticket.

73.The defendant also has the obligation to refund FiveHundred Pesos (P500.00) as the expenses incurred by theplaintiff in having his self fetched to NAIA 3 terminal tocheck in at the defendant's check-in counter.

74.The plaintiff also incurred an expense of P250.00 that he paidto the taxicab in fetching him from the airport to l-ris office-residence.

75.The plaintiff also incurred toll fees in the amount of FortyPesos (P40.00).

76.4s narrated in the facts above, the plaintiff is also clearlyentitled to the moral damage award of Six HundredThousand Pesos (P600,000.00).

77.The plaintiff suffered sleepless nights, fears, anxieties andbesmirched reputation before his clients.

78.The omission that led to that moral damage was deliberatelydone by the defendant because that was their policy, whichis never to wake up persons to look for the missingpassengers who had already checked in.

79.The omission is a clear breach of contract of carriage and aviolation of the law on common carrier at the same time.

80.The law expressly states that the degree of diligencerequired of common carriers is the degree of extraordinarydiligence.

12 liLarr

EFfl

B1.It is also very clear that the same omission of r-rot r.traking upsleeping passengers even at the expellse of them failing to flymust be stopped at all cost for the good of the r"itling public.

B2.Moreover, the practice of the defenclarlt in not refurrcling thetickets of passengers who had checked in for their flights butwho the rlefendarrt did not wake up to boarrl the planesMI]ST BE STCPPED AT ALL COST.

83.Her-rce, there is no issue tl-rat exernLplary aw,ard of FourHundrecl Tl-rcusanri Pesos (P400,000.00) must be awarded toteach the clefelrclant a lesson so as not to repeat it on otherpassengers in th,: future.

B4.For this, th,e plaintiff is askingaward in ti-re ,r-mount of Four(P400,000.00).

for an exetrrl'rla1y clamageI{undrecl Thor-rsancl Pesos

85.For having been compelled to file this case irr order tovindicate ilis d rrnaged reputation and rights that forced himA pay the, filirrg fees of this case in tl"re arnount of

ftABW.Al,, the plaintaiff also has a cause of action fortl-re refr-rncl of ttrer filing fees.

Qtrlle lprtryer

WHEREFORE, [t is r"e'spectfully prayed of the F{onorable Courtthat after due notice and hearing, judgment be issuecl finclir-rg for thepl.rintiff ancl decreeing the following:

1. Refuncl tlie ticket of the plaintiff in the amount of?g,ll0.g8 , the baggafe fee of p488.00, the TerminalFee oI P200.00, 'rhe expenses for the driver ar-rc1 gasolineexprenses in the arnount of P500.00, the taxi fare of P250.00,the TolI Fees oi P40.00, and the filing fee in the an-rount ofM;

13 | i"' ,1 6 s,1

the Toll Fees of P40.00, and the filing fee in the amount of

2. Pay moral damage awards in the amount of P600,000.00; and

3. Puy the exemplary damage award in the amount ofP400,000.00.

other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. February 12,20 13, Manila.

RENTA PE CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATESUnit 7,2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila

BERTENI CA A CAUSINGIBP No. 894664 / 2012 / Manila

PTR No. 0675267 / A3-27-2012 / ManrlaRoll No. 60944/ MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007338, Augtrst 10, zalz

CIRILO P. SABARRE IR.IBP No. 856677 /01-03-2012

PTR No. 117312429 /01-03-2012Roll No. 53639 / MCLE Compliance No. IV-0003255

DERVIN V. CASTROIBP No. 836900/11-18-2010 up to 20tz

PTR No. 0335125 /07-03-2012Roll No. 53624 /MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007336, August 10, 2012

By'

14 lP,tfi*

f

RepuL-rlic of the philippinesCitr. of Manila

)

)SC

sign thison th[$B 1 s

Verification and

ltflay of February

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATIONOF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

L BERTENI CATALUItA CAUSING, regar "ge,

residing atUrit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto st. corner ]B Roxas st., Malate, ManilaCitr', after havi.g been sworn to in accordance witrr raw, do rrerebyrleps5s that I caused the preparation of the foregoi,g complaint,h.tve reacl and understood the same, and the allegatiols therein aretrtie of my personal knowredge and based on authentic recorcls.

I further certify that other than this venue anrl juriscliction, Ihetve not filecl any other action having similar facts, parties ancl reliefsL'rrat'ed for in any quasi-judicial offices, other court or other tribunals,tltrc-l that should I learn one I undertake to inform the Honorableoifice about it within five (5) days from knowrecrge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ICertification of Non-Forum Shopping201 3 irr tl-re City of Manila. r

BERTENI CATIntegratecl Bar of the pli

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TOol' Fetrruary 2072 in the City of Manila.Doc. Xo.: 41LPage INo.: 5/;Book No.: P{- ;

Sr.ries of 2073.

CAUSINGnes ID IVo. 60944

FEB 15BEFORE ME this

2013

doy

B, TAITIYOARY PUBLIG"{IN N0. 231430744000

). 14C55?7 Issued l?.?8.1? Untit 12"3i.13 / R0LL t{0,4069I." rt,:. [!3ll I unlii 1?.J l?r1 I Coam, ]lc. 2011.018 MAillLA(; ..:: .:)i 3lF tiiii,.itl pruis Ciiit Aidg, lragrllrner Dtht, hkamuroi, ll&lh

1-5lilaq,',t