AIR FRANCE vs CARRASCOSO

GR NO. L-21438
SEPTEMBER 28, 1966

“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 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.”

FACTS:

Air France, through Philippine Airlines, issued Carrascoso first class round trip tickets from Manila to Rome.
However, he was held in Bangkok when the manager of the defendant airline forced him to vacate the seat
he was occupying in order for a "white man" as recounted by a witness who the manager alleged has
"better rights" to the seat. Plaintiff then refused and commotion ensued which resulted in the other
Filipino first class ticket holders to pacify Carrascoso and urge him to surrender his seat which he
reluctantly did.

Petitioner PAL asserts that said tickket did not give assurance nor confirm and represent the intent of the
agreement of the parties and that issuance of the first class ticket was no guarantee that he would have a
first class ride and it would depend on the availability of first class seats.

ISSUE:

Was Carrascoso entitled to damages?

RULING:

Yes. The Court ruled that Carrascoso is entitled to damages. He was prevented from enjoying his right to
the first class seat he had rights over and was forcibly ejected from it to accommodate a passenger whose
rights have not been established. The entire situation involves bad faith which when defined is a “state of
mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or will or for ulterior
purpose”. The mere willful malevolent act of petitioner’s manager, petitioner itself, and his employer must
answer.

Art 21 of the Civil Code states:

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. 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". This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier — a
case of quasi-delict. Damages are indeed proper.