4/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reconsideration of the decision as regards the award of damages. On November 2, 1988, respondent opposed the motion for reconsideration.[10] On February 26, 1992, the trial court issued an order granting petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the decretal portion of which is quoted herein, to wit: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby grants the "Motion for Reconsideration". The dispositive portion of the "Decision" is hereby amended with respect to the amount of moral damages, ordering the defendant to pay moral damages to Collin Morris in the amount of P1,500,000.00 and to Thomas Whittier the amount of P1,000,000.00. "SO ORDERED. "Makati, Metro Manila, February 26, 1992. [ORIGINAL SIGNED] TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR. J u d g e"[11] Respondent's appeal rested mainly on the ground that the trial court misappreciated the facts and evidence adduced during the trial. The thrust of its defense was petitioners' lack of cause of action, considering that they checked-in at the SAS counter at the Manila International Airport after the flight manifest was closed and after their first class seats were given to waitlisted economy class passengers.[12] On January 21, 1997, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision reversing the decision of the court a quo, and ordering the dismissal of the complaint for damages. The dispositive portion of the decision provides: "WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one rendered dismissing plaintiffs-appellees' complaint. SO ORDERED."[13] In reversing the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeals found petitioners' statements self-serving. Petitioners failed to prove that they checked-in on time. The appellate court lent credence to respondent's claim that petitioners were denied boarding on SAS Flight SK 893 because of their late arrival for check-in at the international airport. Respondent's employee, Ms. Erlinda Ponce, testified that petitioners checked in after the flight manifest was closed. Hence, this petition.[14] Petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing their complaint for damages and in finding their testimonies self-serving. They contend that the trial court did not act arbitrarily in lending credence to their testimonies and finding their evidence sufficient to warrant the award of damages against respondent. In sum, they https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50293 4/7