Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
JOSEPH TAY a.k.a. TAY
- versus CAPT. CHARLES DEEN, JR.,
CA-G.R. SP No. 128139
July 17, 2013
Captain Charles Deen, Jr., Ana Zuniga, and Patricia Anne
Romey (“appellants”) are before this Court with an appeal under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109 in the case entitled “Joseph Tay a.k.a. Tan Chun Suy vs. Hon. MTC Judge Eliza B. Yu, Ferdinand Santos OIC of MTC Branch 47, Pasay City,
Charles D. Deen, Jr., Ana M. Zuniga, Patricia Anne M. Romey, Jennifer G. Inopea, Office of the Solicitor General” dated March 12, 2012, the dispositive portions of which reads “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The resolution of dismissal dated August 1, 2011 and orders dated July 29 and June 23, 2011 are nullified and/or
annulled and this case is remanded to the court a quo, MeTC Br. 47, Pasay City, Criminal Case No. M-PSY-11-13939-CR for
CA-G.R. SP NO. 128139
Page - 2 _____________________________________________________________________________
and its Order dated June 14, 2012 denying appellants' motion for reconsideration.
Joseph Tay was booked on PAL Flight PR306 bound from
Manila to Hongkong. Upon check in, he was assigned economy seat no. 68H. He accepted the seat assignment and did not inform the check in counter that he preferred a choice economy seat.
Thereafter, passengers boarded the aircraft. Appellee saw that the front row economy seats were not occupied and being a frequent traveler and a regular passenger of PAL for the last 30 years, he knew that passengers are allowed to occupy vacant seats, so he sat at seat no. 31 E., instead of his assigned seat number, without informing any of the flight attendants. A crew member approached him and asked him to go back to his assigned seat.
refused. He was then informed that seat no. 31 E is a choice economy seat and is subject to the payment of additional charges. Appellee claims that the steward was arrogant and demanded
him to vacate the seat. When he refused and asked to be shown the policy of PAL from the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines or from any appropriate government agency authorizing additional charges, the steward called the attention of other flight attendants saying in a loud and threatening voice “Wala na yun. Off load na siya due to security risk.” Thereafter, he heard the pilot announce, over the public system, that there is a trouble maker on board the aircraft. Suddenly, the door of the aircraft opened and two (2) police officers came to remove him from the plane to be brought to a police station. He pleaded with a stewardess and asked how much he should pay for seat no. 31 E. The latter arrogantly replied, “Sorry, it is no longer our business. You are now under police custody. We are now
turning you over to police for investigation and detention.” Appellants, on the other hand, claimed that appellee was
politely approached by flight attendant Patricia Anne Romney (“appellant Romney”), and was requested to occupy his assigned
CA-G.R. SP NO. 128139
Page - 3 _____________________________________________________________________________
seat. Appellee, instead of heeding the request, tauntingly and insultingly retorted “What if I do not want to?” Surprised, appellant Romney walked away and went to talk to flight purser Ana Zuniga (“appellant Zuniga”). The appellee followed appellant Romney and threatened to have her terminated at the same time pointing a finger at her. Appellants...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document