Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, No. L-21438 September 28, 1966
Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, No. L-21438 September 28, 1966
The evidence shows that the defendant violated its 7. Petitioner draws our attention to respondent Carrascoso's testimony,
contract of transportation with plaintiff in bad faith, with thus —
the aggravating circumstances that defendant's Manager
in Bangkok went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff Q You mentioned about an attendant. Who is that attendant
in the presence of many passengers to have him thrown and purser?
out of the airplane to give the "first class" seat that he
was occupying to, again using the words of the witness
Ernesto G. Cuento, a "white man" whom he (defendant's A When we left already — that was already in the trip — I could
Manager) wished to accommodate, and the defendant not help it. So one of the flight attendants approached me and
has not proven that this "white man" had any "better requested from me my ticket and I said, What for? and she said,
right" to occupy the "first class" seat that the plaintiff was "We will note that you transferred to the tourist class". I said,
occupying, duly paid for, and for which the corresponding "Nothing of that kind. That is tantamount to accepting my
"first class" ticket was issued by the defendant to him. transfer." And I also said, "You are not going to note anything
there because I am protesting to this transfer".
ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to Q About that purser?
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. A Well, the seats there are so close that you feel uncomfortable
and you don't have enough leg room, I stood up and I went to
In parallel circumstances, we applied the foregoing legal precept; and, we the pantry that was next to me and the purser was there. He
held that upon the provisions of Article 2219 (10), Civil Code, moral told me, "I have recorded the incident in my notebook." He
damages are recoverable. read it and translated it to me — because it was recorded in
French — "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist
6. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene."
from any other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation
which an air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with Mr. VALTE —
the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and
advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a I move to strike out the last part of the testimony of the witness
relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of the because the best evidence would be the notes. Your Honor.
carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for
damages.
COURT —
Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right
to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy I will allow that as part of his testimony.
and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such Petitioner charges that the finding of the Court of Appeals that the purser
employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of made an entry in his notebook reading "First class passenger was forced
employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to
against the carrier. intervene" is predicated upon evidence [Carrascoso's testimony above]
which is incompetent. We do not think so. The subject of inquiry is not the
Thus, "Where a steamship company had accepted a passenger's check, it entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come
was a breach of contract and a tort, giving a right of action for its agent in within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is
the presence of third persons to falsely notify her that the check was admissible.
worthless and demand payment under threat of ejection, though the
language used was not insulting and she was not ejected." And this, Besides, from a reading of the transcript just quoted, when the dialogue
because, although the relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and
both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that breaks the contract continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down.
may be also a tort". And in another case, "Where a passenger on a Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as part of the res
railroad train, when the conductor came to collect his fare tendered him gestae. For, they grow "out of the nervous excitement and mental and
physical condition of the declarant". 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.
At all events, the entry was made outside the Philippines. And, by an
employee of petitioner. It would have been an easy matter for petitioner
to have contradicted Carrascoso's testimony. If it were really true that no
such entry was made, the deposition of the purser could have cleared up
the matter.
8. Exemplary damages are 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, in addition to moral damages.
10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed by both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals, thus: P25,000.00 as moral damages;
P10,000.00, by way of exemplary damages, and P3,000.00 as attorneys'
fees. The task of fixing these amounts is primarily with the trial court. The
Court of Appeals did not interfere with the same. The dictates of good
sense suggest that we give our imprimatur thereto. Because, the facts and
circumstances point to the reasonableness thereof.
On balance, we say that the judgment of the Court of Appeals does not
suffer from reversible error. We accordingly vote to affirm the same. Costs
against petitioner. So ordered.