Air France v Carrascoso

In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from Manila. Carrascoso
was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane
manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better right than him. Carrascoso
protested but when things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was
transferred to the planes tourist class.

After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for damages for the
embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified, among others, that he when he was forced to
take the tourist class, he went to the planes pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he
noted in the planes journal the following:

First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene

The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded damages in favor of
Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a first class ticket to
Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not
the true intent between the parties.

Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the note made by the purser because the
said note was never presented in court.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in court is admissible in
evidence.

HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana.

Culpa Contractual

There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to furnish Carrasocoso a
first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at
Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when Air Frances 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.

The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first class ticket to a passenger is
not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim is simply incredible.

Culpa Aquiliana

Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso, there is also a
tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be
treated by the carriers 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. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos action is
placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France a case of quasi-delict. Damages
are proper.

HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. 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. Such
testimony is admissible. Besides, when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact of the
startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in
this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook
was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus
escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.

Other source:
FACTS:
Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958.
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 from Manila 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 "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, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told
defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body. After some commotion, plaintiff reluctantly gave his
"first class" seat in the plane.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

1. CFI Manila: sentenced petitioner to pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way of moral damages;
P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; P393.20 representing the difference in fare between first class and tourist class for
the portion of the trip Bangkok- Rome, these various amounts with interest at the legal rate, from the date of the filing of
the complaint until paid; plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit.
2. CA: slightly reduced the amount of refund on Carrascoso's plane ticket from P393.20 to P383.10, and voted to affirm
the appealed decision "in all other respects", with costs against petitioner.
Air France contends that respondent knew that he did not have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight,
although he had tourist class protection; that, accordingly, the issuance of a first class ticket was no guarantee that he
would have a first class ride, but that such would depend upon the availability of first class seats.

ISSUE:
Is Carrascoso entitled to damages?

RULING:
Yes. The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a first class seat; worse, he imposed his
arbitrary will; he forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to the tourist class
compartment - just to give way to another passenger whose right thereto has not been established. Certainly, this is bad
faith. Unless, of course, bad faith has assumed a meaning different from what is understood in law. For, "bad faith"
contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or will or for
ulterior purpose."

For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's manager, petitioner, his employer, must answer. Article 21 of the Civil Code
says:
ART. 21. 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, 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.
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with
kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration.

Although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks
the contract may be also a tort". 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.
Other source 2:
Facts:
Air France issued to Carrascoso, a civil engineer, a 1st class round trip ticket from Manila - Rome. During the stopover at
Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced plaintiff to vacate the 1st class seat because there was a "white man" who had
better right to the seat.

As a result, he filed a suit against Air France where the CFI Manila granted him moral and exemplary damages.

Issue:
Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the 1st class seat and consequently, whether or not he was entitled to the
damages awarded.

Held:
Yes to both.
To achieve stability in the relation between passenger and air carrier, adherence to the ticket issued is desirable. Quoting
the court, "We cannot understand how a reputable firm like Air France could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it
never meant to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of the tickets and yet it allowed the
passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the
company should know whether or not the tickets it issues are to be honored or not."

Evidence of bad faith was presented without objection on the part of the Carrascoso. In the case, it could have been easy
for Air France to present its manager to testify at the trial or secure his deposition but defendant did neither. There is also
no evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made by the white man.

The manager not only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a 1st class seat, worse he imposed his arbitrary
will. He forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the humiliation of having to go to tourist class just to give way
to another passenger whose right was not established. Certainly, this is bad faith.

Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. 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 is conduct, injurious
language, indignities and abuse from such employees. Any discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a
passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.

Exemplary damages were also awarded. The manner of ejectment fits into the condition for exemplary damages that
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

*Bad Faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for
ulterior purpose

Mindanao v Phoenix
FACTS:
Del Monte Philippines, Inc. contracted petitioner Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc., a stevedoring
company, to load and stow a shipment of 146,288 cartons of fresh green Philippine bananas and 15,202 cartons of fresh
pineapples belonging to Del Monte Fresh Produce International, Inc. into the cargo hold of the vessel M/V Mistrau. The
vessel was docked at the port of Davao City and the goods were to be transported by it to the port of Inchon, Korea in
favor of consignee Taegu Industries, Inc. Del Monte Produce insured the shipment under an "open cargo policy" with
private respondent Phoenix Assurance Company of New York , a non-life insurance company, and private respondent
McGee & Co. Inc. (McGee), the underwriting manager/agent of Phoenix.
The vessel set sail from the port of Davao City and arrived at the port of Inchon, Korea. It was then discovered upon
discharge that some of the cargo was in bad condition. The Marine Cargo Damage Surveyor of Incok Loss and Average
Adjuster of Korea, through its representative Byeong Yong Ahn (Byeong), surveyed the extent of the damage of the
shipment. In a survey report, it was stated that 16,069 cartons of the banana shipment and 2,185 cartons of the pineapple
shipment were so damaged that they no longer had commercial value.
Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the cargoes aboard the M/V Mistrau. The vessel set sail from the port of Davao
City and arrived at the port of Inchon, Korea. It was then discovered upon discharge that some of the cargo was in bad
condition.
Del Monte Produce filed a claim under the open cargo policy for the damages to its shipment. McGees Marine Claims
Insurance Adjuster evaluated the claim and recommended that payment in the amount of $210,266.43 be made. Phoenix
and McGee instituted an action for damages against Mindanao Terminal
After trial, the RTC held that the only participation of Mindanao Terminal was to load the cargoes on board the M/V Mistrau
under the direction and supervision of the ships officers, who would not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel
and signed the foremans report unless they were properly arranged and tightly secured to withstand voyage across the
open seas. Accordingly, Mindanao Terminal cannot be held liable for whatever happened to the cargoes after it had
loaded and stowed them. Moreover, citing the survey report, it was found by the RTC that the cargoes were damaged on
account of a typhoon which M/V Mistrau had encountered during the voyage. It was further held that Phoenix and McGee
had no cause of action against Mindanao Terminal because the latter, whose services were contracted by Del Monte, a
distinct corporation from Del Monte Produce, had no contract with the assured Del Monte Produce. The RTC dismissed
the complaint and awarded the counterclaim of Mindanao Terminal in the amount of P83,945.80 as actual damages and
P100,000.00 as attorneys fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Phoenix and McGee have a cause of action and whether Mindanao Terminal is liable for not
having exercised extraordinary diligence in the transport and storage of the cargo.

RULING:
No, in the present case, Mindanao Terminal, as a stevedore, was only charged with the loading and stowing of
the cargoes from the pier to the ships cargo hold; it was never the custodian of the shipment of Del Monte Produce. A
stevedore is not a common carrier for it does not transport goods or passengers; it is not akin to a warehouseman for it
does not store goods for profit.

**Phoenix and McGee appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed and set aside the decision The
same court ordered Mindanao Terminal to pay Phoenix and McGee "the total amount of $210,265.45 plus legal interest
from the filing of the complaint until fully paid and attorneys fees of 20% of the claim." It sustained Phoenixs and McGees
argument that the damage in the cargoes was the result of improper stowage by Mindanao Terminal.