AIR FRANCE v CARRASCOSO o In his complaint, he prayed for moral damages, alleging that as a result of Air
September 28, 1966 | Sanchez, J. | Topic Fance’s failure to furnish him first class accommodations, he suffered
Digester: Angat, Christine Joy F.
SUMMARY: During one of his connecting flights to Rome, Carrascoso, a holder of a
first class ticket, was asked by the manager of Air France to vacate his first class seat
because there was a white man who had a better right to such seat. He refused to do so,
upon which the manager threatened to throw him out of his seat. A commotion ensued
and he eventually vacated his seat under protest. Upon his return, he sued Air France
for damages. Air France contends that his first class ticket was not a guarantee that he is
entitled to a first class seat, and that if ever he is indeed entitled to a first class seat, his
cause of action was a breach of contract and the allegations in his complaint did not
aver bad faith as to entitle him to moral damages. The Court held that Carrascoso is
indeed entitled to a first class seat, and that bad faith on the part of Air France can
actually be inferred from the complaint itself. In any case, the action was that of a quasi-
delict by virtue of the air carrier’s duty, and the circumstances of the case show that the
air carrier was negligent in carrying out such duty.
DOCTRINE: A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree
from any other contractual relation. 43 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 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 it is, that any rule or
discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an
action for damages against the carrier.
FACTS:
 Rafael Carrascoso, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 pilgrims who
will travel to Lourdes, Rome.
o For this trip, he was issued by Air France, through its authorized agent
Philippine Air Lines, a first class round trip airplane ticket from Manila to
Rome.
 From Manila to Hongkong, Hongkong to Saigon, and Saigon to Bangkok, he
travelled in first class. However, at Bangkok (a stopover for the Saigon to Beirut leg
of the flight), the Manager of Air France forced him to vacate his first class seat
because there was a “white man” who had a better right to such seat.
o To this Carrascoso refused, and replied that his seat would be taken over his
dead body. A commotion ensued, and Carrascoso reluctantly gave his seat
after some Filipino passengers pacified and convinced him. He was then given
tourist class accommodations.
 Upon return, Carrascoso filed a case for damages against Air France.
inconveniences, embarrassments, and humiliations, thereby causing plaintiff
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the
like injury
 The CFI ruled in Carrascoso’s favor and awarded the following:
o P25,000 moral damages
o P10,000 exemplary damages
o P393.2o as the difference in fare between first class and tourist class for the
portion of the trip Bangkok-Rome plus interest
o P3,000 attorney’s fees
o Costs of suit
 CA affirmed the trial court. Hence, the instant petition. Air France argues that:
 Air France then argues that Carrascoso, despite holding a first class ticket, was not
entitled to the first class seat.
o Carrascoso, despite holding a first class ticket, was not entitled to the first class
seat. The ticket does not represent the true and complete intent and agreement
of the parties. The issuance of a first class ticket was not a guarantee that he
would have a first class ride since it is dependent upon the availability of first
class seats.
o Besides, to be entitled to a first class seat, the passenger should first confirm
his reservation for first class, which Carrascoso failed to do in this case.
o Carrascoso is not entitled to an award of moral damages since the action is
based on a breach of contract and there was no finding of bad faith.
RULING: Petition granted.
Whether Carrascoso was entitle to the first class seat - YES
 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the ticket accurately represents the true
agreement between the parties. When Air France received the corresponding
amount in payment of first-class tickets, it already sold the first-class seat to
Carrascoso.
o It is absurd to even consider that a reputable firm such as Air France would
issue a ticket which it never meant to honor at all.
o 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. To
accept its argument is to actually place passengers at the mercy of its
employees.
 Besides, based on the testimony of Rafael Altonaga, one of Air France’s witnesses,
when the airline issues a first class ticket marked as OK, it meant that a space [first
class seat] is confirmed as first class and sold to the passenger.
o Air France’s testimony that despite the mark in ticket, the ticket is still subject
to confirmation in Hong Kong cannot be given credence. Oral evidence
cannot prevail over written evidence.
 o Further, court cannot believe that after the ticket has been confirmed, there is
a verbal understanding between Carrascoso and the airline that the first class
ticket issued to him will still be confirmed in Hong Kong.
 There is no credence to Air France’s accusation that Carrascoso surreptitiously
took a first class seat to provoke an issue. Based on Carrascoso’s testimony, after
being told in Saigon that he should see the Manager during the stopover in
Bangkok, he went to see the manager of Air France to confirm his seat. The fact
that he was allowed to take the first class seat in the plane in Bangkok meant he
was entitled to such seat.
 To allow Air France’s contention that a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a
first class ticket, notwithstanding the fact the seat availability has been confirmed, is
to place the passenger in the hollow hands of the airline.
o The passenger is divested of his security to get what he paid for. The airline
can always strike out the stipulations in the ticket and argue that there was
verbal agreement to the contrary.
Whether Carrascoso is entitled to moral damages - YES
 Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Carrascoso sufficiently averred in his
complaint that there was bad faith on the part of Air France to entitle him to
moral damages.
o The complaint avers [see Notes for the verbatim copy of the allegations]:
 That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering,
among others, the Bangkok-Tehran leg;
 That said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first
class transportation at Bangkok
 That petitioner’s employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first
class accommodation after he was already seated and to take a seat
in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience,
embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation,
resulting in moral damages.
o While the term “bad faith” did not appear in the complaint itself, the
inference of bad faith may be drawn from the facts and circumstances of
the case. Bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating
with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or will or for
ulterior purpose.
 It was established that there was a contractual relation between the parties
and that Air France breached the same with bad faith when it wrongfully
expelled Carrascoso from his seat.
o Besides, during the trial, Carrascoso presented evidence of bad faith on the
part of Air France and the latter did not object to the same. If there is indeed
deficiency in averments in the complaint as to justify moral damages, this
deficiency was already cured by evidence.
 On the question of bad faith, Carrascoso was able to establish that Air
France was guilty of the same.
o He was forced out of his seat not only without his consent but against his will
to accommodate a white man.
 There was no evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made
by this white man.
 In case he indeed made a reservation and all the seats turned out to be
taken, Air France should not have resorted to drastic measures such as
ousting Carrascoso who was safely ensconsced in his rightful seat.
o The manager went as far as threatening Carrascoso to be thrown out of the
plane to give the first class seat he was occupying to the white man.
o Petitioner failed to establish any right on the part of the white man and why
this right is better than that of Carrascoso.
 Moreover, there was no justification as to why it was Carrascoso who was
chosen to suffer the consequences of the error of the airline, subjecting
him to humiliation and indignity of being ejected from his seat in the
presence of others.
o The captain of the plain which was asked by the manager to intervene refused
to do so.
 In any case, Air France’s conduct gave rise to both a tort and a quasi-delict. In this
case, Carrscoso’s action is that of a quasi-delict—the violation of the public
duty by Air France, an air carrier.
o A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from
any other contractual relation. Because the business of an air carrier is with the
public – inviting the people to avail of the comfort and advantages it offers—
the contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty.
o 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.
o Thus, neglect or malfeasance of the carrier’s employees could give ground for
an action for damages. Any rude or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against
the carrier.
o Besides, Art. 21 provides that “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
Whether Carrascoso is entitled to exemplary damages and attorney’s fees - YES
 Exemplary damages are proper. 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.
 Attorney’s fees is proper. The grant of exemplary damages justifies a similar
judgment for attorneys' fees. Besides, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when it awarded attorney’s fees which is just and equitable under the
circumstances.
NOTES:
 The allegations in Carrascoso’s complaint reads:
3. That ... plaintiff entered into a contract of air carriage with the Philippine Air
Lines for a valuable consideration, the latter acting as general agents for and in
behalf of the defendant, under which said contract, plaintiff was entitled to, as
defendant agreed to furnish plaintiff, First Class passage on defendant's plane
during the entire duration of plaintiff's tour of Europe with Hongkong as starting
point up to and until plaintiff's return trip to Manila, ... .

4. That, during the first two legs of the trip from Hongkong to Saigon and from
Saigon to Bangkok, defendant furnished to the plaintiff First Class accommodation
but only after protestations, arguments and/or insistence were made by the plaintiff
with defendant's employees.

5. That finally, defendant failed to provide First Class passage, but instead furnished
plaintiff only Tourist Class accommodations from Bangkok to Teheran and/or
Casablanca, ... the plaintiff has been compelled by defendant's employees to leave
the First Class accommodation berths at Bangkok after he was already seated.

6. That consequently, the plaintiff, desiring no repetition of the inconvenience and

embarrassments brought by defendant's breach of contract was forced to take a
Pan American World Airways plane on his return trip from Madrid to Manila.32

xxx xxx xxx

2. That likewise, as a result of defendant's failure to furnish First Class

accommodations aforesaid, plaintiff suffered inconveniences, embarrassments, and
humiliations, thereby causing plaintiff mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings, social humiliation, and the like injury, resulting in moral damages in the
amount of P30,000.00. 33