Today is Thursday, October 14,2021 t The LAWPHIL Project cq NR >. ier ive Laves avo suesPaUcENCE DATABANK Republic ofthe Philippines ‘SUPREME COURT Manila ENpaNc GR No.L21498 September 29,1966 [AIR FRANCE, pttone, RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, spenders Lchaueo, Pieazo and Ageaol for petitioner. Bongzon Vilegas and Zarraga for respondent R. Carrascaso, SANCHEZ, J. ‘The Court of Fist Instance of Manila ! sentenced petitioner to pay respandent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way of moral damages: 10,000.00 as exemplary damages: P393.20 representing the diference In fare between frst class and tourist class forthe porton of the rp Bangkok-Roms, these various amourts with interest at the legal ‘ale, fom te date ofthe fling of te complaint unl pai, plus P3,000,00 for allorneys fees; and the cos of sult (On appeal? the Court of Appeals slightly reduced the amount of refund on Carrascoso's plane ticket from P398.20 {a P3810, an voted to affirm the appealed decision “in all other respects, with costs against peitoner. Te case is now belore us for review on cortora. “The facts declared by the Court of Appeals as "fly supported by the evidence of recor, are Plaintit, a civil engineer, was @ member ofa group of 48 Fllpino pilgrims that loft Manila fr Lourdes on March 530, 1958, (On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Phlppne Air Lines, Inc, issued to plaioil a “Wrst clase" rouna tip aiplane Ucket from Maria to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, paint ‘ravelled in "rst class, but ai Bangkok, the Manager af the defendant airine forced plant to vacate the "rst class" seal that he was occupying because, In the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuenta, hove was a “white man’, who, the Manager alleged, had a better right to the seat. Whon ask to vacate his "rst class" ‘seal, th plant, as was fo be expected, refused, and tld defendant's Manager that his seal would be taken ‘ver his dead body. a commotion ensuee, and, according to said Emesta G. Cuenta, "many of the Filia passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found out thal Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot fscussion wih the whe man (manager, they came all across. to Mr Cavrascosa_and pacified Mr Carrascosa lo give his seal to the while man” (Transcrip, p. 12, Hearing of May 26, 1959); and plaintit reluctantly gave his “rst clase seat in the plane.® 4. The trust ofthe reli pettioner now seeks is tat we review ‘all the findings” 4 of respondent Court of Appeals, Potitoner charges that respondent court failed to make complate findings of fact on all the issues property laid before it We are asked to consider facts favorable to pettloner, and then o overturn the appellate courts decision Coming into focus isthe constitutional mandate that "No decision shal be rendered by any court of record without ‘expressing therein clearly and distincy the facts and the law on which it's based”. This is echoed inthe statutory ‘demand that a judgment determining the mets ofthe case shal state "clearly ane disinely the racis and the law on which it is based’; © and that “Every decision ofthe Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of fact on all nr issues propery ra'sd befor ‘A decision with absolutely nothing to suppor it's a nulity. It's open to lroct attack. ® The law, however, solely insists thal a decision state the "essential ullmate facts" upon which the cour's conclusion is crawn. 8 A court of| Justice isnot hidebound fo write in its decision every bit and piece of evidence '® prasented by ane party and the ‘ther upon the issues raised. Neither Ist be Burdened with the obligation “wo spec in the sentence the facts" hich a party “considered as proved”. "This is but a part ofthe mantal process from which the Court draws the ‘essential ullmata facts. A docision isnot to be so clogged with dotalls such thal proxy, if nat confusion, may result. So ong as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains the necessary facts to warrant ts conclusions, itis no error for said courl to withhold therefrom “any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense”, Because as this Court well observed, "There is ne law that so requires". "Indeed, “the more fallure ta specty (in the decision) the contentions ofthe appeliant andthe reasons fr refusing to belave them Is not sufficient to hold the same contvary to te requirements ofthe provisions of law and the Consitution”. isin ths setting that inManigque, twas held that the mere fact thatthe findings “were based entirely onthe evidence for the prosecution ‘withol taking into consideration or even mentioning the appellants side in the controversy as shown by his own testimony", would not vitate the judgment. "81 the court ié not recite in tho decision the testimony of each witness for, oF each item of evidence preserte by, the defeated party, it does nat mean that the court has overlooked such testimony or such tem of evidence. At any rat, the legal presumptions are that oficial duty has been regularly performed, and that all the matters within an issue in a case were lai before the court and passed upon byt. "© Findings of fact, which the Court of Appeals is required to make, maybe defined as "the writen statement of the ultimate facts as found by the court. and essental to support the decision and judgment rendered thereon. “© “They consist ofthe courts “conclusions” with respect tothe determinative facts in issue". "7 A question of law, upon the other hand, has been declared as “one which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the ‘vidence prosonted by the partos." *® 2. By statute, “only questions of law may be raisea” in an appeal by ceriorar from a judgment of the Court of ‘Agpeals. 1° That judgment is conclusive as tothe fecs,Itis not appropriately the business ofthis Cour: to ater the faci oo review the questions of fact. 2° ‘with these guideposts, we now face the problem of whether the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals suppor is judgment. 3, Wes Carrascoso ented to the fst class seat he clalms? Itis conceded in all quarters that on March 28, 1958 he paid to and recsived ftom petitoner a fst cass ticket. But peltioner asserts that sald ticket dd not represent the true and complete intont and agreement ofthe partes; that Said respondent knew that he sid not have confrmed reservations for frst class on any specie fight, alfrough he had louristelass protecion: that, accordingly, the issuance of a fst class Ueket was ro guarantee that he would have a fist lass ride, but that such would depend upon the avaiiabily of fist class seas ‘These are mattors which peitionar has thoroughly presented and discussed in is brief before the Court of Appeals, under ils thd assignment of errer, which reads: "The tal court erred in finding that plamiif ad confrmed reservations for, and a right to, frst class seats on the “define” segments of his joumey, particulary thet from Saigon to Beit’. 2° ‘And, the Court of Appeals cisposed ofthis contention thus: Defendant seems to capitalize on the argument thatthe issuance ofa first-class ticket was ro guarantee that the passenger to whom the same had been Issued, would be accommodated in the first-class compartment, for asin the case of pint ne had yet to make arrangements upon artval at every station forthe necessary first-class reservation. We are rot impressed by such a reasoning, We canrol understand how a reputable fim Ike defendant airplane company could have the ind'scretion to gve out tickets it never meant to honor st all Itrecowved the corresponding amount in payment of rt-lassUekels and yet allowed the passenger 19 be atthe mercy of ts employees, Is more In Keeping with the ordinary course of business thatthe company should know whather ort the tickets i issues are taba honored or nat.22 Nol thatthe Cour of Appeals is alone. The ral cout similarly dspased of petttone’s contention, thus: (On the fact that plinif pai for, and was issued a "First class" ticket, there can be no question. Apart from his testimony, seo plaini's Exhibits "A", “A-1","B*,"B-1,""B-2", °C" and "C-", and defendant's own witness, Rafael ‘Atoraga, confemed plaintiffs testimony and tested as follows: In these tickets thare are marks “O.K." From what you know, what does this OK mean? A. That the space is confirmed 2. Confirmed for fst class? A. Yes, “rst class”. (Transcript, 9.169) Defendant red o prove by ne testimony ofits witnesses Luis Zaldriaga and Rafael Alonaga that akthough plaintif aie for and was issued a “frst clase” alrlane loka, th lekel was subject to confirmation in Hongkong. The court ‘cannot give credit 19 the testimony of Said witnesses. Oral evidence cannot prevail over writen evidence, and Plaitits Exhibits", "A “C* and "C-1" bali the testimony of said witnesses, and clearly show that tho Plain was issued, and pai for, a fist class tcket without any reservation whatever. Furthermore, as hereinabove shown, defendants own witness Rafgel Allonaga testified thatthe reservation for a “frst class” accommadation forthe plainlif was confirmed. The court cannot beleve that after such confirmation {defendant had a verbal understanding with plant tnat the “rt class” ticket ised to him by defendant would be subject to canfrmation in Hongkong. 2° We have heretofore adverted tothe fact that except fr a sight diference ofa few pesos in the amount refunded on Carrascosos fcket, tha decision ofthe Court of Firs Instance was afirmad by the Caurt of Appeals in all other respects. We hold te view that such a judgment of affrmance has merged the judgment ofthe lower cour. 2¢ Impl in that affrmance is a determnation by the Court of Appeals that the proceeding in the Court of First Instance was free from prejudicial ertor and "all questions raged by the assignments of error and all qestons that might have been raised are to be rogarded as finally adjudicated against the appellant. So algo, the judgmentaffrmed "must be regarded as free fom al eror. 2° We reaches this poley construction because nothing in the ‘docsion of the Court of Appeals on this point would suggest thal ts ndings of fact are in any way at war with those ‘ofthe tial cour. Nor was said affimance by the Court of Appeals upon a ground or grounds diferent from those \which were made the basis ofthe conchusions of the tial court. 2° Hf, as petitioner underscores a fis-class-icket holder isnot ented to a fist class seat, notwithstanding the fact that seat availabilty in specif fights i therein confirmed, then an air passenger is placed inthe hollow of the hands of| ‘an aifine, Wnal seeurly then can a passenger have? It wil always be an easy matter for an airline aided by is ‘employees, to strko out the vory stipulations inthe tket, and say that here was a verbal agreement tothe contrary ‘What if the passenger had a schedule fo full? We have long learned thet, a8 a rule, a witen document speaks 3 tnifom language; tat spoken word could be notoriously unreliable. If only to achve stably in the relations between passenger and ar carir, adherence tothe cke! so issued is desirable. Suchis the case here. The lower ‘courts reused to belove te oral evidence intended o defeat the covenants in the eke, “The foregoing are the considerations which point to the conclusion that there are facts upon which the Court of ‘Appeals predicated the finding that respondent Carrascoso had a frst class teket and was ened toa fist class seat at Bangkok, which is stopover in the Saigon ta Berut ag af the ight. 2” We perceive na "woke af dstortions by the Court of Appeals of pettoner’s statement of its position", as charged by pettioner. 28 Nor do we subscribe to pettione’s accusation that respondent Carrascoso "surepttiousy took a frst class seat to provoke an issue". 2 ‘And ths because, a8 petiloner states, Carrascaso went to see the Manager at his ofice in Bangkok "to confirm my seat and because from Saigon | was fold again to see the Manager’. °° Why, then, was he alowed to take a frst lass seal inthe plane at Bangkok, ihe had no seat? Or, if another had a better ight to the seat? 4, Pettioner assals respondent cour's award of moral damages. Petiioners trenchant laim is that Carrascoso's ‘action is planted upon breach of contract that to authorize an aware for moral damages thera must be an averment ‘of fraud or bad faith" and thatthe decision ofthe Court of Appeals falls to make a finding of bad faith. The pivotal ‘alegations inthe complaint bearing on this issue ae 3. That .. plaintit entered into @ contract of air cariage with the Philippine Alr Lines for a valuable ‘consideration, the lator acting as general agents for and in behalf of the detendant, under which said Contract, plantif was ented 1, as defendant agreed fo furnish plainil, First Class passage on defendant's plane during the entre duraton of plaints tour of Europe with Hongkong as stating point up to and unt Plait tur trp to Manila, 4. That, during the fst two legs ofthe trp from Hongkong to Salgon and from Saigon to Bangkok, defendant furished tothe plain First Class accommodation but only after protestations, arguments andlor insistence wore made by the paint with defendants employees, 5. That finally, defendant failed to provide Fist Class passage, but instead fumished plaintif only Tourist Clase accommodations rom Bangkok to Teheran andor Casablanca, .. tne plait has been compelled by dofendant’s employees to leave the Fist Class accommodation berths at Bangkok affor ho was already ‘seated, 6. That consequently the plaintif, desiring no repettion ofthe inconvenience and embarrassments brought by defendant's reach of canract was forced to ake a Pan American Worl Aways plane on his rtm trp fram Madkid to Manta 3? 2. That licewise, as a result of defendants failure to furish FirstClass accommodations aforesaid, plant suffered incorweniences, embarrassments, and humilaions, thereby causing plain’ mental anguish, serous anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the like injury, resuling in moral damages inthe amaunt of P30,000.00. * ‘The foregoing, in our opinion, substantaly aver: First, That there was @ contract to furnish plaintf a fst class passage covering, amongst others, the Bengkok-Teheran lag; Second, That sald contract was breached when pettione fled to furnish fst class ransportation at Bangkok: and Third, that there was bad fath when pettoner's ‘employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his fst class accommodation berth “after he was already, seated” and to take a seat Inthe Tourist class, by reason of which he sulleed inconvenience, embarrassments and humilations, ‘hereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings ana socal humiliation, resulting in moral ‘damages. Its ue thal there 1s no specie mention o th term bad faith inthe complaint. Bul. the infrenco of ad 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 partes. But the sive ofthe action is put on wrongful expulsion. ‘Quite apart ror the foregoing is that (a) ight the start ofthe tal, respondents cauneel placed petitioner on guard ‘on what Carrascaso intended fo prover That while siting in the plane in Bangkok, Carrascoso was ousted by peltioner’s manager who gave his seal to a write man; 2 and (b) evidence of bad faith n the fulfilment of the ‘contract was presented without objection on the pat ofthe petitoner. Iti, therefore, unnecessary to inquire a to \whathar or nat there is sufiientaverrent in the complaint to juslty an award for moral damages. Deficoncy inthe ‘complaint, i any, was cured by the evidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence is not even required, 3 On the question of bad fat, the Court of Appeals declare: ‘That the plant was forced aut of his seat in the fist class compartment of the plane belonging to the dofendantAlr France while at Bangkok, and was transferred to the tourist class not only without his consentbut against his wil, has been suficiently established by plain in his testmony before the cour, corroborated by the corresponding enty made by the purser of the plane in his notebook which notation reads as follows: “First-class passenger was forced to goto the tourist class against hs wil, an that the captain efused to intervene ‘and by the testimony of an eyeswiness, Emesto G. Cuenta, who was a co-passenger. The captain of the plane who was asked by the manager af defendant company at Bangkok to intervene even refused todo $0. itis noteworthy that no ane on behal of defendant ever corvadicted or denied this evidence forthe plait. ‘couls have been easy for defendant to present ts manager at Bangkok to testy atthe tal ofthe case, or yet to secur his dispostion; but defendant dd neithor. 7 The Court of appeals furtner stated — Nether is there evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man. Henes, ithe ‘omplayeos of tho dofendant at Bangkok sold a fst-ciass Uckot to him when ail the seats had arady boon {aken, surely the plait should not have been picked out as the one to suffer the consequences and ta be Subjectec to the humiliation and indignity of being ejected from his seat in the presence of other. Instead of ‘explaining tothe white man the improvidence commited by defendant's employees, the manager adopted the more draste step of ousting the plainttf who was then safely ensconsced in his rightul seat. We are Sengthened in our belief that his probably was what happened there, by the testimony of defendants witness Rafael Atonaga who, when asked to explain the meaning of the letfers “O.K” appearing on the tickets of plait, sad thatthe space is confimed for fst class. Likewise, Zenada Faustino, another winess for defendant, who was the chief ofthe Reservation Offce of defendant, tstfied as follows: "Q How doos the porson in the Ucket issuing office know whal resorvation the passenger has arcanged with you? ‘A They call us up by phone and ask fr the confirmation.” (Len. 247, June 19, 1959) In this connection, we quote with approval what the bial Judge has said on this point Why did the, using the words of witness Ernesto G. Cusnto, "white man” have a "better right to the seal occupied by Mt, Carrascosa? The record silent, The defendant ain didnot prove “any belt”, nay, any ight onthe par af the “white man" tothe "First clas” seat thatthe plaintif was occupying and {or which he paid and was issued a corresponding “ft class” Uekel, If there was a justified reason for the action of the defendants Manager in Bangkok, the defendant ‘could have easily proven it by having taken the testimony of the sad Manager by deposition, but Sefendant did not do so; the presumption 1s that evidence wilfuly suppressed would be adverse if produced [Sec. 69, par (2), Rules of Cour} and, under the circumstances, ne Court is constrained to find, a8 it does find, that the Manager of the defendant aitine in Bangkok not merely asked but threatened the plait o throw him out of the plane he didnot give up his "st class" sest because the said Manager wanted to accommodate, using the words of the witness Emesto G. Cuero the white man? 38 Itis realy correct to say thatthe Court of Appeals in the quoted portion frst ranscrived didnot use the term "bad fat". But can it be doubted that the rectal of facts theren points to bad faith? The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his ight to a fist class seat, worse, he Imposed his aroirary wily he forcbly ejected him from hs seal, made him suffer the humilalion of having to go to the tourst class ‘compartment - just fo give way to anather passenger whose right thereto has nol been established. Certainly, this 's bad fath, Unies, of course, bad fat na assumed a meaning different from whats underetood inlaw For, "bad fat contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating wit furve design or with some motive of seifnteret o wil or for uiteior purpose.” ‘And i the foregoing wore not yet sufiient, there is the express finding of bad faith in the judgment of the Court of First Inetance, hus! he evidence shows that the defendant violated its contract of transportation with paint in bad fat, with the aggravating circumstances that defendant's Manager in Bangkok went to the. extent of threatening the plant in the presence of many passengers Io have him tirown out ofthe airplane to dive the “Test class" sea! that he was occupying to, again using the words of the winess Emesto C. Guento, a "white man’ whom ho (defendants Manager) wished to accommodate, and the defendant has not proven that this “white man" had any "better right" to occupy the “frst class" seat thatthe plain was occupying. duly pad or, and for which tne corresponding “frst clase” ticket was issued by the defendant to him.“2 5. The responsibilty of an employer forthe torious act of its employees need not be essayed. Its wall sttod in law." For the wilful malevolent act of peioner’s manager, patitoner, his employer, must answer. Article 21 of the Civil Code says: [ART.21. Any person who wilfully causes los or injury to another in @ manner that is contrary to morals, good ‘customs or publ palcy shall compensa tho latter fer te damage. In paraliel circumstances, we applies the foregoing legal precept: and, we held that upon the provisions of Article £2219 (10), Ci Code, moral damages are recoverable,{A contract to transport passengers is quite diferent n kind and degree from any other contractual relation. © And ‘his, because of the relation wich an av-carier sustains with the publc. Its business is mainly wih the traveling ble. I invites pooplo to aval ofthe comforts and advantages i ofers, The contrat of alr carriage, torotor, ‘generates a relation attended with a puble dy: Neglect or malfeasance of the carrier's employses, naturally. could ‘ive ground foran acion for damages. Passengers do not contract meraly for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with Kindness, respect, courtesy and due consigeraion, They are enltled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, incigntes and abuses fom such employees. So is, that any Tule or eiscourteous ‘conduct on the par of employees towards a passenger givas the latter an action for damages agains the cari. “Thus, “Where a steamship company “ had accepted a passenger's check, it was a breach of contract and a tot, ivng a right of action ‘or ts agent in the presence of third persons to falsely nay her tral the check was worthless ‘and demand payment under threat of section, though the language used was not insulting and sho was not ‘ejected And this, because, although the relation of passenger and carer is “contractual bot in origin and nature’ nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract may be also a tor’. 4” And in another case, "Where a passenger on a raifoad tain, when the conductor came to colact his fara tendered him the eaih fare to a point ‘where the train was scheduled not to stop, and tol him that as soon as the train reached such pont ne would pay the cash fare from that point to destination, there was nothing in the conduct of the passenger which justified tho ‘conductor in using insuling language to him, as by caling him a lunatic,” # and the Supreme Court of South Carona there held the cari liable forthe mental suffering of said passenger. Potitoners contact with Carrascoso is one allended with public duly. The stess of Carrascoso's action as we have sid, Is placed upan his wrongful expulsion, THs Isa violation of puolc duty by the pettioner air carrer — a case of ‘uasi-delict Damages are proper. 7. Pettioner draws our aterton o respondent Carrascoso's testimony, thus — 2 You mentioned about an attendant. Who i that attendant and purser? ‘A.When we left akeady — that was already in the tip — | could not help it. So one of the fight attendants ‘@ppraached me and requested from me my ticket and | said, What for? and she said, "We will rote that you ‘eansferred fo the tourist class | sai, "Nothing ofthat kind. That is tantamount to accepting my vansfer" And [also said, “You are not going to note anything there because | am protesting to this vansfer 2 Was she able to note it? ANo, because I id not olve my tcket (@ About that purser? |A.Wiel, the seals thero are so close that you fel uncomfortable and you don't have enough eg roam, | stood Up and | wont to tho pantry that was next to me and the pursor was Here. He fold mo, “lave recorded the incident in my notebook.” He read i and translated i to ma — bacausa ft was recorded in Franch — "Fits class passenger was forced fo go to the tourst class against his wil, and that the captan refused to intervene.” Mr VALTE— | move to stike out the last part ofthe testimony of the witness because the best evidence would be the notes, Your Honor. courr. | wil allow that as part of his testimony. # Potitoner chargas that the finding ofthe Court of Appeals thatthe purser made an entry in his notebook reading “First class passenger was forced to goto the tourist class against his wil, and thal the captain refused to intervene is predicated upon evidence [Carrascoso's testimony abovel which 's incompetent. We do nat think so. The subvec ‘of inquiry nol He entry, bul the ouster incident. Testimony onthe entry does net come within the proscription ofthe best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissole. 9° Besides, trom a reading of the transcript just quoted, whan the dialogue happened, the impact of the staring ‘occurrence was sil fresh and continued to be fek, The exstement had not as yet died down, Statements then, In this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. °° Far, they grow “out of the nervous exctement and ‘mental and physical condition ofthe declarant. 5" The utterance ofthe purser regarding his entry inthe notebook Was spontaneous, and related to the ecumstances ofthe ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed, 2 thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rue It forms part of te res geste. ‘tall events, tho entry was made outsido the Philppines. And, by an employee of peitone. It would have boon an ‘easy matter for patitoner to have contracted Carrascoso’s testimony. If it wore realy rue that no such entry was made, the deposition of the purser could have cared up the matter We, therefore, hold thatthe transcribed testimony of Carrascoso is admissible in evidence. 8. Exemplary damages are well varded. The vl Cade gives the court ample power fo grant exemplary damages — in contracts and quas- contracts. The only condition is that defendant should have “acted in a wanton,{rauculent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner” &° The manner of ejectment of respondent Carrascoso {rom his frst class seat fis into ths lagal precept. And tis, in alton to moral damages. >* 8. Tho right to altomay's fo0s is fuly established. The grant of exemplary damages justi a similar judgment for sitomeys' fees, The least that can be Said is tat the cours below fe that itis Out just and equtable that atomays! foes be given. °° We do not intend to braak faith wih the traditon that discretion wel exercised — as it was here — should not be siturbed, 10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed by both the tral court and the Court of Appeals, thus 25,000.00 as moral camages, P10,000.00, by way of exemplary damages, and P3.000.00 ae attomeye’ fees, The {88k of fixing these amounts is primarily withthe tral cout. °° The Court of Appeals ai not interfere wit the same. “The dictates of good sense sugges! that we give our imprimatur thereto, Because, the facls and ciccumstances pont tothe reasonableness thereot >? On balance, we say thatthe judgment ofthe Court of Appeals does not suffer from reversible erar, We accordingly vote fo afr the same. Costs agains! petilone. So ordered Concepcion, C.J, Reyes, JBL, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makaintal, Zadar and Casto, JJ, concur Bongzon, JP, 1, 100K 9 part. Footnotes “chu Case No. 38810, Rafael Carrascoso, plait, vs. AirFrance, defendant” R.A, pp. 79-80 26,A.G.R. No. 2652221 Rafael Carrascoso, plainti- appellee, vs. A France, defendantappellant” appendix A, petione’s brie, pp 145-147. See also R.A, pp. 68-87, Pettioner's brie, p. 142. Section 12, Atle Vil, Constitution ®section 1, Rule 36, Rules of Court, See also Secton 2, Rule 120, in reference to judgments in eriminal Tec. 4, Rule 1; Sec. 33(2), Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, eawards vs. McCoy, 2 Phil, $88, 601; Yangco vs. Court of First Instance of Mania ta, 28 Phil 183,191 Braga vs. Milora, 3 Phi. 458,465, 44, “aringo vs. Arena 14 Phi. 269, 266; emphasis supplied “Preyos vs. People. 71 Phi. §98, 600. *“3people vs, Manigque 35 0.G., No. 96, pp. 1682, 1883, cling Section 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure ‘and Section 12, Art Vil, Consitition, supra Badge *Ssocton , (m) and (0), Rule 131, Rules of Court 3 al. vs. Boyd, 65 S.W. (24) pp. 601,610. “Sin re Good's Estate, 266 P. (2d), pp. 719, 728. *Teadger ota. vs. Boyd, supra. *8coduco vs. Court of Appeals, et al, L-17647, February 28, 1964. ‘Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Cour, formerly Section 2, Rule 46 ofthe Rulos of Cour, 2yfodel, otal. vs. Calasanz, otal L-14835, August 31, 1960; Astraguil, ot a. vs. Javier, et a, L-20034, January 30, 1965. 21petitoner's brie inthe Court of Appeals, pp. 82-98. 22Decision of the Court of Appeals, Appendix A, patitoners bret, pp. 148-149, PRA, pp. 67,73. 245.8.C.)S.,p. 295; 3.Am. Jur p. 678. 253,Am. Jun, pp. 677-678.25300 Garcia Valdez vs. Seterana Tuason, 40 Phi, 943, 951 2Tcarrascoso's Yoke, according to petitioner (bret, pp. 7-8), shows: Seomentarng Carer ighine De 4. Mania o yamine pq kar a0 2-Mongtongto NA ent Saigon Vietnam) e8s March $1 a.saigntoBont AEE as wart 25 eitoner's brie, p. 50; see also id, pp. 87 and 48. 214, p. 103. iid, p. 102 2 taricle 2220, Civil Code roads: “Will injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contrac! where the defendant acted fraudulently or in ba faith, 22R,A, p, 2-4; omphasts supplod 5A, P. 5; sand cause of action, ‘Copeland vs. Dunehoo et al, 138 S.E., 267, 270. See also 25 C..S., pp. 758-758; 15 Am. Jur, pp. 786: 76 statement of Allomey Vilegas for respondent Carrascoso in open court. Respondents bre, p. 33. section 5, Rule 10, Rules of Court, in part reads: “SEC. 5. Amendment fo conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.—Whan issues not raised by the pleadings are red by express or implied consent (of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects, as f they had been raised in the pleadings. Such ‘amendment ofthe pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise ‘hese issues may be made ypon mation of any party alan ime, even afer judgment, but failure soto amend does not afect the result ofthe tal of these issues .."; Co Tlamco vs. Diaz, etc, etal, 75 Phil 872, 879, ‘IM. Tuason & Ca, Ine, ee, v8. Bolanos, 5 Phi 105, 170 7 Decision, Cour of Appeals, Appondix A of potiioners bret, pp. 147-148, Decision ofthe Court of Appeals, Appendix A of petioner' brie, pp. 147-151 8 Wards & Phrases, Perm. Ed, Vo. 5, p13, ting Warfeld Natural Gas Co. vs Allan, 69 S.W. (26) 52, 538, 4°RA, 0.74: emphasis supplied. tanicle 2180, Civil Code. 42philippine Refining Co, ve. Garcia, eta, L-2187% and L-21962, September 27, 1966, 49300 Section 4, Chapter 3, Tile Vil, Civil Code. #4 RCL. pp. 174-1175, 4°an aie carer is a common carter, and air transportation is similar or analogous to land and water ‘ransporiation, Mendoza vs, Phlppine Ai Lines, Ine, 90 Phi, B36, 841-542, 4®pustro-American SS, Co, vs, Thomas, 248 F, 231, Aid, p. 238. °Lipman vs. Alanic Coast Line R.Co.,93 SE. 714,716 “®peitoner's brio, po, 104-105, 499y Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1983 ep. 76 ‘S2Section 35, Rule 130, Rules of Cour, StIv Martin, Rules of Court in he Philipines, 1963 ed, p. 324 2p,Spree 2282, Cl Code. ‘*aricle 229, Oil Code. ‘®pricle 2208, (1) and (19), Civil Code. ‘8coleongeo vs. Claparls, L-18618, March 31, 1984; Corpus vs. Cuademo, etal, L-28721, March 31, 1985, STCr Yutuk vs. Mania Electric Company, L-13016, Mey 31, 1961; Lopez et al. vs. Pan American Werle ‘Airways, 22418, March 30, 1986, ~ res