19.air France V Carrasoco

AIR FRANCE vs.
RAFAEL CARRASCOSO
G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966
FACTS:
Rafael Carrasoco is a civil engineer and was a member of a group of 48 Filipino

pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958. On March 28, 1958 Air France,
through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class"
round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled
in "first class", however at Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to
vacate the "first class" 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 Mr. Carrasoco refused, and told
defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body, when some of the
passengers at the tourist class found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion
with Manager, they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his
seat to the white man" and Mr. Carrascoso unwillingly gave his "first class" seat in the plane.
ISSUE:
1) Is there a breach of contract by Air France?
2) Is Rafael Carrasoco entitled to damages?
RULING:
1) Petitioner's trenchant claim is that Carrascoso's action is planted upon breach of

contract – that to authorize an award for moral damages there must be an averment of
fraud or bad faith and that the decision of the Court of Appeals fails to make a finding of bad
faith. The allegations in the complaint are: (a) Mr. Carrascoso entered into a contract of air
carriage with the Philippine Air Lines for a valuable consideration, (b) that, during the first
two legs of the trip from Hongkong to Saigon and from Saigon to Bangkok, defendant
furnished to the plaintiff First Class accommodation but only after protestations, arguments
and/or insistence were made by the plaintiff with defendant's employees and (c) Air France
failed to provide First Class passage, but instead furnished plaintiff only Tourist Class
accommodations from Bangkok to Teheran and/or Casablanca and that the plaintiff has
been compelled by defendant's employees to leave the First Class accommodation berths at
Bangkok after he was already seated.
As a result of defendant's failure to furnish First Class accommodations, Mr.

Carrascoso suffered inconveniences, embarrassments, and humiliations, thereby causing
plaintiff mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the like
injury, resulting in moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00.
The Court’s opinion are as follows: First, That there was a contract to furnish
plaintiff a first class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran leg; Second,
That said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation
at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when petitioner'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 moral damages. 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.
On the question of bad faith, the Court of Appeals declared that the plaintiff was
forced out of his seat in the first class compartment of the plane belonging to the defendant
Air France while at Bangkok, and was transferred to the tourist class not only without his
consent but against his will, has been sufficiently established by Mr. Carrascoso’s testimony
before the court, corroborated by the corresponding entry made by the purser of the plane
in his notebook which notation reads as follows: "First-class passenger was forced to go to
the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene",
2) Yes, Mr. Carrascoso is entitled to damages. For the willful malevolent act of
petitioner's manager, petitioner, his employer, must answer. Article 21 of the Civil Code
says: “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
The contract of air carriage 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. 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.
Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of
Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a
violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier — a case of quasi-delict. Damages are
proper.
Exemplary damages are as well awarded. The Civil Code gives the court ample
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. And this is in addition to moral damages.

19.air France V Carrasoco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19.air France V Carrasoco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19.air France V Carrasoco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIR FRANCE vs.

Rafael Carrasoco is a civil engineer and was a member of a group of 48 Filipino

1) Is there a breach of contract by Air France?

2) Is Rafael Carrasoco entitled to damages?

1) Petitioner's trenchant claim is that Carrascoso's action is planted upon breach of

As a result of defendant's failure to furnish First Class accommodations, Mr.

You might also like