AIR FRANCE vs.
Rafael CARRASCOSO and CA his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the
Best Evidence Rule | Sept. 28, 1966 | Sanchez, J.
Nature of Case: Petition for Review
Digest maker: Fortun
SUMMARY: Carrascoso booked and paid for first class airplane tickets from Manila to
Rome with Air France. Although he sat in first class from Manila to Bangkok, he was told
by an Air France manager at Bangkok that another person had a better right over his first
class seat. After a commotion, Carrascoso agreed to transfer seats. He eventually filed for
damages against Air France. Carrascoso testified that a flight attended approached him to
note that he was transferred from first class, and that a purser recorded such event in his
notebook. Air France argues that such testimony was incompetent because the notebook of
the purser would be the best evidence. The Court held that the testimony is admissible
because the subject of inquiry was the incident and not the content of the notebook
DOCTRINE: When the subject of inquiry is an incident, not an entry, testimony on an entry
does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule
FACTS:
 Plaintiff Carrascoso was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila
for Lourdes on March 30, 1958
 On March 28, 1958, defendant Air France, through authorized agent, PAL, issued
Carrascoso a 'first class' round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome
 From Manila to Bangkok, Carrascoso travelled in 'first class', but at Bangkok, the
Manager of Air France forced him to vacate his seat because, in the words of the
witness Ernesto Cuento, there was a 'white man', who, the Manager alleged, had a
'better right’ to the seat. Carrascoso refused to vacate and told the Manager that his
seat would be taken over his dead body. A commotion ensued, and many Filipino
passengers in the tourist class got nervous and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his
seat to the white man. He reluctantly did so
 Carrascoso filed a case for damages. CFI Manila found that he indeed had confirmed
reservations and a right to first class seats on definite segments of his journey,
particularly from Saigon to Beirut, so it ordered Air France to pay moral and
exemplary damages, P393.20 representing the difference in fare between first class
and tourist class from Bangkok-Rome, all with legal interest, atty’s fees and costs
 The CA affirmed, but slightly reduced the refund on the plane ticket to P383.10
 Air France now seeks that the SC review “all the findings" of the CA. It alleges that
CA failed to make complete findings of fact on all the issues properly laid before it
(See notes on SC discussion on whether findings of fact support judgment in the CA)
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON the transcribed testimony of Carrascoso is admissible in evidence - YES
a. Carrascoso testified that a flight attendant approached him for his ticket to
note that he was transferred from first class and also that a purser recorded
in his notebook that 'First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist
class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene.' Air France
argues that the CA erred in not striking out for incompetence such
testimony because the notebook is the best evidence. This is incorrect
b. The subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on
the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule.
When the dialogue happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was
still fresh and continued to be felt and the excitement had not as yet died
down. Statements in this environment are admissible as part of the res
gestae since they grow "out of the nervous excitement and mental and
physical condition of the declarant". The utterance of the purser regarding
circumstances of the ouster. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed,
escaping the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.
c. As an employee of Air France, it would have been easy to contradict
Carrascoso’s testimony on the entry with a deposition of the purser
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.
Other Issues
1. WON Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat – YES
a. The CA did not find credible Air France’s argument that Carrascoso knew
that the true agreement of him having tourist class protection and that
issuance of a first class ticket depended on availability of seats at each
station. This argument did not hold considering that Air France, a reputable
firm, already received payment for the first-class tickets but contrary to
ordinary business practice, allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its
employees
b. It was established that Carrascoso paid for and was issued a first class
ticket. His testimony, the tickets, and even Air France’s witness Altonaga
confirmed that the tickets had “O.K.” marks confirming the first class seat
c. While Air France witnesses Zaldariaga and Altonaga stated that the ticket
was subject to confirmation in Hongkong, this cannot be given credit
because oral evidence cannot prevail over written evidence, the plane
tickets, which show the reservation
d. If a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat despite
confirmation, 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. Adherence to the ticket is
desirable if only to achieve stability in the relations of passenger and carrier
2. WON he is entitled to moral damages - YES
a. While Air France argues that Carrascoso's action is based on breach of
contract so there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith for moral
damages, the allegations in the complaint substantially aver bad faith: (1)
there was a contract to furnish a first class seat (2) there was a breach at
Bangkok (3) Air France’s employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first
class accommodation "after he was already seated" 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
b. While there is no specific mention of the term bad faith in the complaint, it
may be inferred from the facts and circumstances. The contract was averred
only to establish the relation between the parties, but the stress of the action
is put on wrongful expulsion
c. Aside from this, Carrascoso’s counsel stated what Carrascoso intended to
prove: the ousting by Air France’s manager. Also, evidence of bad faith in
the fulfillment of the contract was presented without objection, nor was it
contradicted or denied that Carrascoso was forced out of his seat without
his consent and against his will, corroborated by an entry of a purser of the
plane in his notebook and testimony of copassenger Cuento. The captain
also did not even intervene despite being requested by the manager.
Deficiency in the complaint, if any, was cured by the evidence
 d. It could have been easy for Air France to present its manager at Bangkok to distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based" and that "Every decision of the
testify at the trial or secure his deposition, but this was not done. There was CA shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before it".
also no evidence whether the “white man” had a prior reservation. Instead  A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity and is open to direct
of explaining to the white man the improvidence by Air France’s attack. The law only insists that a decision state the "essential ultimate facts" upon
employees, the manager took the drastic step of ousting Carrascoso which the court's conclusion is drawn. It need not write down every piece of
e. "Bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with evidence, so long as the decision contains the necessary facts to warrant its
furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior conclusions. It is in this setting that in Manigque, it was held that the mere fact that
purpose." the findings were based entirely on the evidence for the prosecution would not
vitiate the judgment. If the court did not recite in the decision the testimony of each
3. WON the employer is responsible for the torts of its employees - YES witness of the defeated party, it does not mean that the court has overlooked such
a. Air France must answer for the willful malevolent act of Air France’s testimony or item of evidence. The legal presumptions are that official duty has been
manager. NCC Art. 21 provides: Any person who wilfully causes loss or regularly performed, and that all the matters within an issue in a case were laid
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or before the court and passed upon by it.
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."
b. It has been held that moral damages are recoverable under such provision
c. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree
from any other contractual relation. Its business is mainly with the
travelling public and 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
d. Passengers 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.
e. Petitioner'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 carrier, a case of quasi-delict

4. WON exemplary damages were proper - YES

a. The Civil Code gives the court 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, in addition to moral damages

5. WON atty’s fees should be awarded - YES

a. The grant of exemplary damages justifies a similar judgment for attorneys'
fees. The lower courts felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys' fees
be given. We do not intend to break faith with the tradition that discretion
well exercised - as it was here - should not be disturbed.

6. WON the damages are excessive - NO

a. The awards: P25k, as moral damages; P10k, by way of exemplary damages,
and P3k as attorneys' fees were fixed by the trial court. Even the CA did not
interfere with it. The facts and circumstances point to reasonableness

NOTE:
SC emphasized the guideposts whether findings of fact by the CA support its judgment
 "No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based" echoed in the
statutory demand that a judgment on the merits of the case shall state "clearly and