Air France vs.

Zani, GR 199767, March 13, 2019

FACTS:
On September 13, 1995, petitioner Airfrance and respondent Zani executed a
credit agreement allowing respondent to purchase airline tickets on credit and at
a fixed price from Airfrance. Despite the payment terms, however, by May 17,
2000, Zani had an outstanding balance of P1,738,180.00, prompting Airfrance to
send a demand letter to respondent. Due to respondent's failure to pay, petitioner
filed in the RTC a collection case against respondent. The RTC ruled in favor of
petitioner, which the CA affirmed in its Decision dated September 29, 2008. The
SC affirmed the RTC and the CA through our Minute Resolution dated March 18,
2009. Meanwhile, on July 11, 2000, respondent purchased and booked flights
through ANSCOR Travel Corporation, a travel agency. Respondent's trip was from
July 12-24, 2000; covered different destinations; and involved several airlines,
including petitioner. On the evening of July 15, 2000, however, petitioner's
manager in Mahe Island informed respondent via telephone call that he will not be
allowed embarkation on the confirmed flight the following day. 14 On July 16,
2000, respondent was refused boarding. Respondent filed a complaint for damages
against petitioner and SAL. He claims that petitioner's refusal was a breach of the
contract of carriage between him, petitioner, and SAL, which caused him actual
and moral damages.Petitioner, argued that at the time of the incident, respondent
was indebted to it in the aggregate amount of P1,738,180.00, which is a clear
violation of their credit arrangement. Thus, when petitioner refused carriage to
respondent, it was merely enforcing its rights under Article VII (1) (g) of the
General Conditions of Carriage, Passenger, and Baggage. RTC ruled in
respondent's favor. It held that petitioner and respondent had a perfected contract
when the former confirmed the latter's tickets twice, and that petitioner's refusal
to let respondent board was a breach of their contract, notwithstanding
respondent's pending obligation to it. The CA, in the assailed Decision dated
November 24, 2011, affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. Hence, this petition

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Petitioner Airfrance violated the contract of carriage.

HELD:
YES. A contract of carriage is defined as one whereby a certain person or
association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news
from one place to another for a fixed price. Thus, an airline's issuance of confirmed
tickets is a guarantee to the passenger that the airline would honor the tickets,
assure him of a space in the flight, and transport him for that segment of his trip
corresponding to the confirmed ticket.

Meanwhile, breach of contract is

defined as the failure, without legal reason, to comply with the terms of a contract,
or the failure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole
or part of the contract. The notice petitioner gave to respondent, however, did not
cite this provision as petitioner's basis for its refusal to carry respondent. As
petitioner did not indicate that its refusal to carry respondent is in relation to his
previous acts of not paying for his ticket or not settling his credit arrangement,
petitioner cannot now claim that respondent's unsettled credit arrangement for his
previous purchase of tickets is the basis of petitioner's refusal to carry him on
board.