This is the digest of the Neypes v. Court of Appeals where the Neypes Rule originated. It is discussed for Civil Procedure.Full description
Palmares v CA DigestFull description
Perez v. CA digestFull description
agency caseFull description
for Succession classFull description
For Admin LawFull description
case digest
Full description
digest, corporation law
Full description
crim pro
digest creditFull description
Case on Torts and Damages under LiabilitiesFull description
:)
Singapore Airlines v. CA, 243 SCRA (1995)
Facts: Rayos Rayos was was an overse overseas as cont contrac ractt worke workerr who who had had a renew renewed ed contra contract ct with with the the Arabian American American Oil Company (Aramco). As part of Aramco's Aramco's policy policy its employees employees ret!rnin" ret!rnin" to #hahran #hahran $a!di Arabia from %anila are allowed to claim reimb!rsement reimb!rsement for amo!nts paid for e&cess ba""a"e of !p to kilo"rams as lon" as it is properly s!pported by receipt. On April *+ Rayos took a $in"apore Airlines ($,A) fli"ht to report for his new assi"nment with a -kilo"ram e&cess ba""a"e for which he paid //0.. Aramco reimb!rsed said amo!nt !pon presentation of the e&cess ba""a"e ticket. ,n #ecember *+ Rayos learned that he was one of several employees bein" investi"ated by Aramco for fra!d!lent claims. 1e immediately asked his wife to seek a writt written en confi confirma rmatio tion n from from $,A that that he indee indeed d paid paid for an e&cess e&cess ba"" ba""a" a"e e of kilo"rams. On #ecember *+ $,A's mana"er 2ohnny 3hoo notified 4eatri5 of their inability to iss!e the certification re6!ested beca!se their records showed that only three three kilo"ra kilo"rams ms were were entered entered as e&cess e&cess and accordin accordin"ly "ly char"ed char"ed.. $,A iss!ed iss!ed the certification re6!ested by the spo!ses Rayos only on April + *+ after its investi"ation of the anomaly and after 4eatri5 assisted assisted by a lawyer threatened threatened it with a laws!it. 7his delay ca!sed Rayo8s contract with Aramco not bein" renewed. Rayo s!es $,A. $,A blames A9 $,A claimed that it was not liable to the Rayoses beca!se the tamperin" was committed by its handlin" a"ent hilippine Airlines (A9). $,A files a rd party complaint a"ainst A9. A9 answers that the tamperin" was $in"apore8s fa!lt. 2!d"e r!les for Rayo on the main case and for $in"apore in the rd party complaint. 2!d"ment for Rayo became final. A9 A9 appeals the rd party complaint claimi claimin" n" for for the the first first time time that that Rayo Rayo was was not not entit entitled led to dama" dama"es es from from $in"a $in"apor pore e beca!se beca!se his contract contract with Aramco Aramco was not renewe renewed d beca!se beca!se of his !nsatis !nsatisfac factory tory performance. ,ss!e: ;hether or not A9 can validly assail for the first time on appeal the trial co!rt's decision s!stainin" s!stainin" the validity of Rayo8s complaint a"ainst $,A if A9 A9 did not raise this iss!e in the lower co!rt. 1eld: 2!d"ment for Rayo bein" final A9 may not 6!estion it. A rd-party defendant is allowed allowed to set !p in his answer the defense defenses s which which the rd-party rd-party plaintiff plaintiff (ori"inal (ori"inal defendant) has or may have a"ainst the ori"inal plaintiff's claim. 1owever he m!st do so in his rd party answer and not raise it for the st time on appeal. A9 sho!ld have raised in its rd party answer everythin" that it may conceivably interpose by way of its defense defense incl!din" specific denials of alle"ations alle"ations in the main complaint which implicated it alon" with $in"apore.
