Air France v. Carrascoso, Gr No.

L-21438, 9/28/1966

FACTS:

On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air
Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket romManila to Rome. From
Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the Manager of the
defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the "firstclass"seat that he was occupying because,
in the words of the witness Ernesto G. 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 Ernesto G. Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the
tourist class; when they found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the
white man [manager], they came all across to Mr.Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to
give his seat to the white man" and plaintiff reluctantly gave his "first class" seat in the plane.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

Was Carrascoso entitled to the first class seat he claims and therefore entitles to damages?

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

Yes. It is conceded in all quarters that on March 28, 1958 he paid to and received from
petitioner a first class ticket. But petitioner asserts that said ticket did not represent the true
and complete intent and agreement of the parties; that said respondent knew that hedid not
have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight, although he hadtourist class
protection; that, accordingly, the issuance of a first class ticket was not q guarantee that he
would have a first class ride, but that such would depend upon the availability of first class
seats.

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,thenan
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 itsemployees, tostrike
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. Such is the case here. The lowercourts refused to
believe the oral evidence intended to defeat the covenants in the ticket. Why, then, was he
allowed to take a first class seat in the plane at Bangkok, if he had no seat or, if another had a
better right to the seat?
To authorize an award for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or badfaith. 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.

The contract was averred to establish the relation between the parties. But the stress of the
action is put on wrongful expulsion. It is, therefore, unnecessary to inquire as to whether or not
there is sufficient averment in the complaint to justify anaward for moral damages. Deficiency
in the complaint, if any, was cured by the evidence.A n amendment thereof to conform to the
evidence is not even required. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have
a right to be treated byt he 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.