GASHEEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner,
vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents
G. R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993
FACTS: Petitioner was a medicine
student at Lyceum Northwestern
Colleges at Dagupan City. He was an
Iranian exchange student and was 29
years old. Respondent was a former
waitress on a luncheonette, and was
22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly
the lover of the respondent, and was
said to promise marriage to the latter,
which convinced her to live with him in
his apartment. It was even alleged
that the petitioner went to the house
of the respondent to inform her family
about the marriage on the end of the
semester. However, the marriage did
not materialize, with several beatings
and maltreatment experienced by the
respondent from the petitioner.
The case was filed in the RTC of
Pangasinan, and the decision was held
in favor of the respondent. However,
the petitioner claimed that the
judgment of the RTC was an error, for
the claims of the respondent are not
true, and that he did not know about
the custom of the Filipinos; his acts
were in accordance of his custom. The
decision of the RTC was affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals. Hence,
the petitioner filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent
could claim payment for the damages
incurred by the petitioner.
RULING: Mere breach of marriage is
not punishable by law. However, since
the respondent was proved to have a
good moral character, and that she
had just let her virginity be taken away
by the petitioner since the latter
offered a promise of marriage, then
she could ask for payment for
damages. Furthermore, since she let
her lover, the petitioner, “deflowered”
her since she believed that his
promise to marry was true, and not
due to her carnal desire, then she
could have her claims against the
petitioner. Moreover, the father of the
respondent had already looked for pigs
and chicken for the marriage reception
and the sponsors for the marriage, and
then damages were caused by the
petitioner against the respondents,
which qualified the claims of the
respondent against the petitioner.
Air France vs. Carrascoso
FactThe plaintiff, Rafael Carrascoso,
paid for and was issued a “First class”
ticket by Air France from Manila to
Rome. During a stopover in Bangkok,
the manager of Air France asked the
plaintiff to vacate his seat because a
white man has a “better right” than
him. At first, the plaintiff protested,
but, as things got heated up, he was
asked by the other Filipinos on board
to give up his seat and transfer in the
tourist class. After the trip, Carrascoso
sued Air France for the embarrassment
and inconvenience he suffered. The
trail court awarded damages to the
plaintiff which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. Air France assailed
the decision. According to them, the
issuance of a first class ticket does not
guarantee Carrascoso a seat in the
first Class.
Issue: Whether or not Air France is
liable for the damages to Carrascoso
and on what basis
Decision: Yes. Air France is liable based
on culpa contractual and culpa
aquiliana. Culpa Contractual There
exists a contract of carriage between
Air France and Carrascoso. There was France — a case of quasi-delict.
a contract to furnish Carrasocoso a Damages are proper.
first class passage; Second, That said
contract was breached when Air
France failed to furnish first class
transportation at Bangkok; and Third,
that there was bad faith when Air
France’s employee compelled
Carrascoso to leave his first class
accommodation berth “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
moraldamages. The Supreme Court
did not give credence to Air France’s
claim that the issuance of a first class
ticket to a passenger is not an
assurance that he will be given a first
classes at. Such claim is simply
incredible. Culpa Aquiliana Here, the
SC ruled, even though there is a
contract of carriage between Air
France and Carrascoso, there is also a
tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana.
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. Air France’s
contract with Carrascoso is one
attended with public duty. The stress
of Carrascoso’s action is placed upon
his wrongful expulsion. This is a
violation of public duty by the Air