TRANSPO CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE; QUASI-DELICT; LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS

Title: Air France v. Carrascoso G.R. No. L-21438

Date: September 28, 1966
Ponente: Sanchez, J.
RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF
AIR FRANCE,
APPEALS,
petitioner
respondents
SUMMARY
Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first
class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France
to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better right than him. Carrascoso protested but when things got
heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the planes tourist
class. Air France avers that the issuance of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in
first class because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties.
DOCTRINES
Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees could give ground for an action for damages. Damages here are
proper because the stress of respondent's action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion, which is a violation of a public
duty by petitioner-air carrier a case of quasi-delict.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with
kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So, any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.
Although the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin and nature, nevertheless, the act that
breaks the contract may also be a tort.
NATURE OF THE CASE: A petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA which affirmed with modifications
the decision of the CFI of Manila.
FACTS
Plaintiff CARRASCOSO, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes.
The defendant, AIR FRANCE, through its authorized agent, PAL, issued to plaintiff a 'first class' round trip airplane ticket
from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff traveled in 'first class', but at Bangkok, the Manager of the
defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the 'first class' seat that he was occupying because, in the words of the
witness, Cuento, there was a 'white man', who, the Manager alleged, had a 'better right to the seat.
When asked to vacate his 'first class' seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told defendant's Manager
that his seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and, according to said Cuento, many of the
Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found out that Carrascoso was having a heated
discussion with the manager, they came all across to and pacified Carrascoso to give his seat to the 'white man' and
plaintiff reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat in the plane.
Air France asserts that:
o Ticket did not represent the true and complete intent and agreement of the parties;
o Carrascoso knew that he did not have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight, although he had
tourist class protection;
o Issuance of a first class ticket was no guarantee that he would have a first class ride, but that such would depend
upon the availability of first class seats.
Petitioner also assails respondent court's award of moral damages. It claims that Carrascoso's action is planted upon
breach of contract; that to authorize an award for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith;
and CA failed to make a finding of bad faith.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not Carrascoso is entitled to the first class seat he claims.
Whether or not the award of moral and exemplary damages is proper.
RATIO
1. YES.
Air France seems to capitalize on the argument that the issuance of a first-class ticket was no guarantee that the
passenger would be accommodated in the first-class, for plaintiff had yet to make arrangements upon arrival at
every station for the necessary first class reservation.
 A reputable firm like defendant airplane company could not have the indiscretion to give out ticket it never meant
to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of first-class tickets end yet it allowed the
passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the
company should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not.
If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat, notwithstanding the fact
that seat availability in specific flights is therein confirmed, then an air passenger is placed in the hollow of the
hands of an airline. What security then can a passenger have? It will always be an easy matter for an airline aided
by its employees, to strike out the very stipulations in the ticket, and say that there was a verbal agreement to the
contrary. What if the passenger had a schedule to fulfill? We have long learned that, as a rule, a written document
speaks a uniform language; that spoken word could be notoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the
relations between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket so issued is desirable.
2. YES.
The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a first class seat; worse, he imposed his
arbitrary will; he forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to the tourist
class compartment just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has not been established.
Certainly, this is bad faith. For, "bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes."
It is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad faith in the complaint. But, the inference of bad faith is
there; it may be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth therein. Deficiency in the complaint, if any, was
cured by the evidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence is not even required.
The evidence shows that defendant violated its contract of transportation with plaintiff in bad faith, with the
aggravating circumstances that defendant's Manager in Bangkok went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in
the presence of many passengers to have him thrown out of the airplane to give the 'first class' seat that he was
occupying to, again using the words of witness Cuento, a 'white man' whom he wished to accommodate, and the
defendant has not proven that this 'white man' had any 'better right' to occupy the 'first class' seat that the plaintiff
was occupying, duly paid for, and for which the corresponding 'first class' ticket was issued by the defendant to
him.
If there was a justified reason for the action of the defendant's Manager in Bangkok, the defendant could have
easily proven it by having taken the testimony of the said Manager by deposition, but defendant did not do so;
the presumption is that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced [Sec. 69, par. (e) Rules of
Court]; and, under the circumstances, the Court is constrained to find, as it does find, that the Manager of the
defendant airline in Bangkok not merely asked but threatened the plaintiff to throw him out of the plane if he did
not give up his 'first class' seat because the said Manager wanted to accommodate using the words of the witness
Cuento, the 'white man'.
A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual relation. And
this, because of the relation which an air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling
public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore,
generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally,
could give ground for an action for damages.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a light to be treated by the carrier's employees
with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rude or discourteous
conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.
Exemplary damages are well awarded. The Civil Code gives the Court ample power to grant exemplary damages
in contracts and quasi-contracts. The only condition is that defendant should have "acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner". The manner of ejectment of respondent Carrascoso
from his first class seat fits into this legal precept.
RULING
On balance, we say that the judgment of the Court of Appeals does not suffer from reversible error. We accordingly vote
to affirm the same. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.
(SANTOS, 2B 2017-2018)