AIR FRANCE

vs
RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R.No. L-21438, September 28, 1966)

FACTS:

This case started on March 1958, when 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
advice of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and were transferred
to the plane’s 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 plane’s pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who
told him that he noted in the plane’s 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 Carrascoso’s testimony regarding the
note made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the testimony of Carrascoso regarding the note which was not
presented in court is admissible in evidence.
HELD: 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.

The court therefore holds that the transcribed testimony of Carrascoso is admissible
in evidence.