Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako For Petitioner. Morales & Joyas Law Office For Private Respondent

G.R. No.
76093 March 21, 1989

AIR FRANCE, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NARCISO O. MORALES, respondents.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for petitioner.
Morales & Joyas Law Office for private respondent.
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision
** of the Court of Appeals, dated 1986, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875,

entitled "Narciso Morales vs. Air France," dismissing herein petitioner's appeal from the adverse ruling of the trial court (Branch 33, CFI of Rizal, Kalookan
City) *** and the latter's denial of its motion for reconsideration. The respondent Court of Appeals likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its
decision in a resolution dated 25 September 1986.
In reviewing the records, we find:
Sometime in October 1977, private respondent Narciso Morales thru his representative, Ms. Janet Tolentino, purchased an airline ticket from Aspac
Management Corporation, petitioner's General Sales Agent in Makati, for P 9,426.00 plus P 1,413.90 travel tax, of which P 413.90 were later refunded to Ms.
Tolentino.
The itinerary covered by the ticket included several cities, with certain segments thereof restricted by markings of "non endorsable' and 'valid on AF (meaning
Air France) only', as herein specified:
CARRIER EXPRESS
ITINERARY SPECIFIED RESTRICTIONS
New York/Paris Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Paris/Stockholm Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Stockholm/Copenhagen None
Copenhagen/London None
London/Amsterdam None
Amsterdam/Hamburg None
Humburg/Frankfurt None
Frankfurt/Paris Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Paris/Geneva Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Geneva/Madrid None
Madrid/Nice Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Nice/Rome Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Rome/Athens None
Athens/Tel Aviv None
Tel Avive/Bangkok Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY
Bangkok/Manila Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY 1

While in New York, U.S.A. on 3 November 1977, private respondent Morales obtained three (3) medical certificates (Exhibits G, G-1, G-2) attesting to ear an
infection which necessitated medical treatment. From New York, he flew to Paris, Stockholm and then Copenhagen where he made representations with
petitioner's office to shorten his trip by deleting some of the cities in the itinerary. Respondent Morales was informed that, as a matter of procedure,
confirmation of petitioner's office in Manila (as ticketing office) must be secured before shortening of the route (already paid for). Air France in Amsterdam
telexed AF Manila requesting for rerouting of the passenger to Amsterdam, Hamburg, Geneva, Rome, Hongkong, Manila. 2
As there was no immediate response to the telex, respondent proceeded to Hamburg where he was informed of AF Manila's negative reply. After reiterating
his need to flying home on a shorter route due to his ear infection, and presentation of supporting medical certificates, again, the airline office made the
necessary request to Manila on 23 November 1977 for a Hamburg, Paris, Geneva, Rome, Paris, Hongkong and Manila route. Still, the request was denied.
Despite respondent as protest and offer to pay any fare difference, petitioner did not relent in its position. Respondent, therefore, had to buy an entirely new
set of tickets, paying 1,914 German marks for the homeward route, namely:
Itinerary Carrier Date Reservation
Hamburg/Frankfurt LH 26 Nov. OK (Lufthansa)
Frankfurt/Geneva SR 26 Nov. OK (Swissair)
Geneva/Rome AZ 29 Nov. OK (Alitalia)
Rome/Hongkong BA 02 Dec. OK (British Airways)
Hongkong/Manila PR Open Open (Philippine Airlines) 3
Upon arrival in Manila, respondent sent a letter-complaint to Air France dated 20 December 1977 thru Aspac Management Corporation. Respondent Morales
was advised to surrender the unused flight coupons for a refund of its value, but he kept the same and, instead, filed a complaint for breach of contract of
carriage and damages.
CFI Judge Marcelino Sayo found Air France in evident bad faith for violation of the contract of carriage, aggravated by the threatening attitude of its
employees in Hamburg. Considering the social and economic standing of respondent, who is chairman of the board of directors of a multi-million corporation
and a member of several civic and business organizations, an award of moral and exemplary damages, in addition to the actual damages incurred, was
deemed proper under the circumstances. The dispositive part of the CFI decision states:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby renders judgment for the plaintiff and orders the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 1,914
German Marks, in its equivalent in Philippine Peso, as actual damages, the sum of P 1,000,000.00 as moral damages, and the further
sum of P 800,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest thereon from date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid, plus the
sum equal to 20% thereof as attorney's fees, with costs against the plaintiff. 4
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the award of damages was modified as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified so that it will read as follows: Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
the plaintiff against the defendant ordering ther defendant to pay to said plaintiff the following.
(1) 1,914 German Marks in its equivalent in Philippine peso at prevailing rate of exchange as actual damages, with legal interest
thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid;
(2) P 500,000.00, as moral damages;
(3) P 150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
(4) 5% of the amount of actual, moral and exemplary damages which are recoverable, as attorney's fees. 5
Questioning the factual findings of the respondent court, petitioner comes to this court for review citing three (3) errors:
1. The conclusion that there is a breach of contract is premised on a misapprehension of facts.
2. Failure to apply the doctrine of avoidable consequence in the present case.
3. Award of exorbitant damages and attorney's fees.
After considering respondent's comment, the Court resolved to give due courses to the petition, and required the parties to file their respective memoranda.
Complying with the resolution of 26 October 1987, private respondent filed his reply memorandum on 17 December 1987. This is the last pleading on record.
While this Court is not a trier of facts, yet, when the findings of respondent court are without citation of specific evidence on which they are based, there is
sufficient reason for the Court to review the appellate court's decision. 6
The respondent court's ruling that there was breach of contract of carriage is premised on petitioner's refusal to re-route respondent and, in effect, requiring
him to purchase a new set of tickets. Petitioner refutes this conclusion, claiming that the original ticket was discounted and non-endorsable on certain
segments. Eventually respondent flew on his chosen route with different airlines.
Under the factual milieu, was there really a breach of contract of carriage on the part of the petitioner, as to justify the award to private respondent of actual,
moral and exemplary damages? We find none.
International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Resolution No. 275 e, 2., special note reads: "Where a fare is restricted and such restrictions are not clearly
evident from the required entries on the ticket, such restrictions may be written, stamped or reprinted in plain language in the Endorsement/Restrictions" box
of the applicable flight coupon(s); or attached thereto by use of an appropriate notice." 7 Voluntary changes to tickets, 8 while allowable, are also covered by
(IATA) Resolution No. 1013, Art. II, which provides: "1. changes to the ticket requested by the passenger will be subject to carriers regulations.
Private respondent wanted a rerouting to Hamburg, Geneva, Rome, Hongkong and Manilas 9 which shortened the original itinerary on the ticket issued by AF
Manila through ASPAC, its general sales agent. Considering the original restrictions on the ticket, it was not unreasonable for Air France to deny the request.
Besides, a recurring ear infection was pleaded as reason necessitating urgent return to Manila. Assuming arguendo a worsening pain or discomfort, private
respondent appears to have still proceeded to four (4) other cities covering a period of at least six (6) days and leaving open his date of departure from
Hongkong to Manila.10 And, even if he claimed to have undergone medical examination upon arrival in Manila, no medical certificate was presented. He
failed to even remember his date of arrival in Manila.
With a claim for a large amount of damages, the Court finds it unsual for respondent, a lawyer, to easily forget vital information to substantiate his plea. It is
also essential before an award of damages that the claimant must satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its
causal connection to defendant's acts.11
In KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. CA, 12 the Court observed.... As noted by the Court of Appeals that condition was printed in letters so small that one would have to use a magnifying glass to read
the words. Under the circumstances, it would be unfair and inequitable to charge the respondents with automatic knowledge or notice of
the said condition so as to preclude any doubt that it was fairly and freely agreed upon by the respondents when they accepted the
passage tickets issued to them by the KLM. As the airline which issued those tickets with the knowledge that the respondents would be
flown on the various legs of their journey by different air carriers, the KLM was chargeable with the duty and responsibility of specifically
informing the respondents of conditions prescribed in their tickets or in the very least, to ascertain that the respondent read them before
they accepted their passage tickets. A thorough search of the records, however, inexplicably fails to show that any effort was exerted by
the KLM officials or employees to discharge in a proper manner this responsibility to the respondents. Consequently, We hold that the
respondents cannot be bound by the provision in question by which KLM unilaterally assumed the role of a mere ticket-issuing agent for
other airlines and limited its liability only to untoward occurrences on its own lines. (Emphasis supplied)
Unlike in the KLM case where the breach of contract was aggravated by the discourteous and arbitrary conduct of an official of the Aer Lingus which the KLM
had engaged to transport the respondents, here. Air France employees in Hamburg informed private respondent that his tickets were partly stamped "nonendorsable" and "valid on Air France only."13 Mere refusal to accede to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absence
of bad faith.14 To our mind, respondent has failed to show wanton, malevolent or reckless misconduct imputable to petitioner in its refusal to re-route.
Air France Manila acted upon the advise of ASPAC in denying private respondent's request. There was no evident bad faith when it followed the advise not to
authorize rerouting.15 At worst, the situation can be considered a case of inadvertence on the part of ASPAC in not explaining the non-endorsable character
of the ticket. Of importance, however, is the fact that private respondent is a lawyer, and the restriction box 16 clearly indicated the non-endorsable character
of the ticket.
Omissions by ordinary passengers may be condoned but more is expected of members of the bar who cannot feign ignorance of such limitations and
restrictions. An award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be sustained under the circumstances, but petitioner has to refund the unused coupons in the
Air France ticket to the private respondent.
WHEREFORE, the judgement appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ordered, however, to refund to private respondent the value of the
unused coupons in the passenger's ticket issued to him by the petitioner. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado JJ., concur:

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako For Petitioner. Morales & Joyas Law Office For Private Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako For Petitioner. Morales & Joyas Law Office For Private Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako For Petitioner. Morales & Joyas Law Office For Private Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

76093 March 21, 1989

** of the Court of Appeals, dated 1986, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875,

Bangkok/Manila Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF ONLY 1

You might also like