Air France vs.

Carrascoso,

G.R. No. L-21438,

September 28, 1966

FACTS:

Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Airlines, issued Carrascoso a first-class round trip ticket
from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, he travelled in first class but in Bangkok, PAL manager
forced him to vacate his seat because there was a white man who the manager alleged had a “better
right” to the seat. Carrascoso refused to vacate his seat, but was later convinced by some Filipino
passengers to give up his seat.

Carrascoso filed a case for damages against Air France. The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered Air
France to pay Carrascoso moral and exemplary damages as well as the difference in fare between first
class and tourist class for the portion of the trip.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals slightly reduced the refund of the ticket, but otherwise affirmed the Court
of First Instance decision.

Petitioner Air France now claims that the first class ticket did not represent the true and complete intent
and agreement of the parties. It asserts that Carrascoso knew that he did not have confirmed reservations
for first class though he had tourist class protection. Thus, the ticket was no guarantee that he would have
a first class seat since such would depend on the availability of first class seats.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat?

2. Whether or not he can claim moral damages?

HELD:

1. There is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. He is entitled to first-class seat by
the mere fact that he paid for and was issued a first-class ticket. Also, if, as petitioner claims, a first-class-
ticket holder is not entitled to a first-class seat, stability in the relations between passenger and air carrier
as well as the passenger’s security would be adversely affected. Petitioner also failed to establish whether
or not a prior reservation was made by the white man, so he had no claim to the seat.

2. Carrascoso can claim moral damages. Air France argues that Carrascoso’s action is based on breach of
contract. Thus, to authorize an award for moral damages, there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith
as per Art. 2220 of Civil Code “Willful 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 contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.”
The Court established that:

First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering, amongst others, the
Bangkok-Teheran; 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 seat, causing him mental anguish, humiliation and wounded feelings
resulting in moral damages.

Though there was no specific claim of bad faith in the complaint, inference of bad faith may be drawn
from the facts of the case. Also, during the trial, evidence of bad faith was presented without objection
from the petitioner. Thus, the deficiency in the complaint was cured by evidence.

Petitioner’s contract with Carrascoso is attended with public duty. Though based on breach of contract,
the stress of Carrascoso’s action is put on wrongful expulsion. Moreover, an act that breaks a contract is
a tort. Thus, being a violation of public duty, it is a quasi-delict.

The wrongful expulsion is independent of the breach. Two sources of obligations are implicated in this
case— contract and quasi-delict. Petitioner is still be liable for moral damages.