AIR FRANCE vs. GILLEGO section.

Air France representative verified from their

G.R. No. 165266 | 2010 | Adea computer that he had indeed a checked-in luggage. He
was advised to just wait for his luggage at his hotel and
SUMMARY: Gillego, a congressman left Manila on board Air that they would take charge of delivering the same to
France’s aircraft bound for Paris, France. He was to attend as him that same day. But said luggage was never delivered
a keynote speaker in a conference to be held in Budapest, despite follow-up inquiries by Gillego.
Hungary and Tokyo, Japan. When in Paris, he arranged for an  Upon his return to the Philippines, Gillego’s lawyer
earlier connecting flight to Budapest. When he arrived in immediately wrote to Station Manager of Air France
Budapest, he was not able to locate his luggage. Despite complaining about the lost luggage and the resulting
assurance that it would be delivered to him and repeated damages he suffered while in Budapest.
follow-ups, he did not recover his luggage. It contained his o Gillego claimed that his single luggage contained
personal effects such as clothes, toiletries, medicines for his his personal effects such as clothes, toiletries,
hypertension, and the speeches he had prepared, including medicines for his hypertension, and the
the notes and reference materials he needed for the speeches he had prepared, including the notes
conference. When he returned to Manila, he followed up and reference materials he needed for the
about his luggage but was ignored. He filed a case for breach conference.
of contract of carriage and claim for actual, moral and o He was thus left with only his travel documents,
exemplary damages. When he recovered his luggage (2 yrs pocket money and the clothes he was wearing.
after) he did not insist on his claim for actual damages so TC Because of the failure to deliver his luggage
granted him moral damages (1m), exemplary damages despite assurances and his repeated follow-ups,
(500k), and attorney’s fees (50k). CA affirmed. SC agreed with Gillego was forced to shop for personal items
TC and CA that Air france is guilty of gross negligence including new clothes and his medicines.
amounting to bad faith, but reduced the award of damages. o Aside from these unnecessary expenditures of
about $1,000, he had to prepare another
DOCTRINE: In awarding moral damages for breach of contract speech, in which he had difficulty due to lack of
of carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately data and information.
injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with o He thus demanded the sum of 1 million from Air
malice or bad faith. Not every case of mental anguish, fright France as compensation for his loss,
or serious anxiety calls for the award of moral damages. inconvenience and moral damages. Air France,
Where in breaching the contract of carriage the airline is not however, continued to ignore his repeated
shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for follow-ups regarding his lost luggage.
damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences  On July 13, 1993, Gillego filed a complaint for damages
of the breach of the obligation which the parties had foreseen against Air France. He asserted that as a common carrier
or could have reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability which advertises and offers its services to the public, Air
does not include moral and exemplary damages. France is under obligation to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over checked-in luggage and to
Inattention to and lack of care for the interest of its see to it that his luggage entrusted to petitioner’s
passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration, custody would accompany him on his flight and/or could
particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith be claimed by him upon arrival at his point of destination
which entitles the passenger to an award of moral damages. or delivered to him without delay. Gillego claimed for
actual damages ($2,000.00 or P40,000), moral damages
(P1,000,000), exemplary damages (P500,000), attorney’s
FACTS: fees (P50,000) and costs of suit.
 Sometime in April 1993, Bonifacio H. Gillego, then  Air France, in its answer, contended that its liability for
incumbent Congressman of the 2nd District of Sorsogon lost checked-in baggage is governed by the Warsaw
and Chairman of the House of Representatives Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating
Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights, was to International Carriage.
invited to participate as one of the keynote speakers at o Under the said treaty, its liability for lost or
the 89th Inter-Parliamentary Conference Symposium on delayed registered baggage of respondent is
Parliament Guardian of Human Rights to be held in limited to 250 francs per kilogram or US$20.00,
Budapest, Hungary and Tokyo, Japan from May 19 to 22, which constitutes liquidated damages and hence
1993. Gillego is not entitled to any further damage. Air
 On May 16, 1993, Gillego left Manila on board Air France averred that it has taken all necessary
France’s aircraft bound for Paris, France. He arrived in measures to avoid loss of Gillego’s baggage, the
Paris early morning of May 17, 1993. While waiting at the contents of which he did not declare, and that it
De’ Gaulle International Airport for his connecting flight has no intent to cause such loss, much less knew
to Budapest he made arrangements for an earlier flight that such loss could occur. The loss of luggage is
than he booked. He was given a corresponding ticket and due to or occasioned by force majeure or
boarding pass and also a new baggage claim stub for his fortuitous event or other causes beyond the
checked-in luggage. However, upon arriving in Budapest, carrier’s control. Diligent, sincere and timely
Gillego was unable to locate his luggage at the claiming
 efforts were exerted to locate the missing  Air France argues that even assuming that Gillego was
luggage.. The claims for actual, moral and entitled to moral and exemplary damages, the sums
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees adjudged should be modified or reduced.
therefore have no basis in fact and in law, and o It is stressed that petitioner or its agents were
are, moreover speculative and unconscionable. never rude or discourteous toward respondent;
 Trial court ruled in favor of Gillego and ordered Air he was not subjected to humiliating treatment
France to pay 1 million as moral damages, 500,000 as or comments as in other cases.
exemplary damages, 50,000 as attorney’s fees, and the o That Gillego was a Congressman should not
costs. TC found Air France grossly negligent for failing to result in an automatic increase in the moral and
deliver the luggage and ignoring Gillego’s follow-ups. exemplary damages recoverable.
 CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. o As held in Kierulf v.CA, the social and financial
o Air France committed a breach of contract by its standing of a claimant may be considered only if
failure to deliver the luggage which has not he or she was subjected to contemptuous
been satisfactorily explained. conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his
o Instead of justifying the delay (Later on, the or her social and financial standing.
luggage was apparently recovered but was  A business intended to serve the travelling public
return only after the trial of the case which is 2 primarily, a contract of carriage is imbued with public
yrs after it was lost), Air France took refuge interest.
under the provisions of the Warsaw Convention o The law governing common carriers
to escape liability. consequently imposes an exacting standard.
o Neither was there any showing of apology on o Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that in
the part of Air France as to the delay. case of lost or damaged goods, common carriers
Furthermore, Air France even faulted Gillego for are presumed to have been at fault or to have
not leaving a local address in Budapest in order acted negligently, unless they prove that they
for them to contact him in the event the luggage observed extraordinary diligence as required by
is found. This actuation is a clear showing of Article 1733.
willful misconduct and a deliberate design to o Thus, in an action based on a breach of contract
avoid liability. It amounts to bad faith. MR was of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to
denied. Hence, this petition. prove that the common carrier was at fault or
was negligent.
ISSUES and HOLDING: o All that he has to prove is the existence of the
contract and the fact of its non-performance by
Air France is guilty of gross negligence, bad faith and willful the carrier.
misconduct and acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,  That Gillego’s checked-in luggage was not found upon
oppressive or malevolent manner, hence the award of moral arrival at his destination and was not returned to him
and exemplary damages. until about two years later is not disputed.
o The action filed is founded on such breach of the
 Damages awarded are definitely not proportionate or contract of carriage with Air France who offered
commensurate to the wrong or injury supposedly no satisfactory explanation for the unreasonable
inflicted. delay in the delivery of thes baggage.
o Gillego was able to reconstruct the speeches, o The presumption of negligence was not
notes and study guides he had earlier prepared overcome and hence its liability for the delay
for the conference in Budapest and Tokyo, and was sufficiently established.
to attend, speak and participate therein as o However, upon receipt of the said luggage
scheduled. during the pendency of the case in the trial
o Since he prepared the research and wrote his court, Gillego did not anymore press on his
speech, considering his acknowledged and long- claim for actual or compensatory damages and
standing expertise in the field of human rights in neither did he adduce evidence of the actual
the Philippines, Gillego should have had no amount of loss and damage incurred by such
difficulty delivering his speech even without his delayed delivery of his luggage.
notes. In addition, there is no evidence that o Consequently, the trial court proceeded to
members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union determine only the propriety of his claim for
made derogatory statements or even knew that moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s
he was unprepared for the conference. fees.
o Bearing in mind that the actual damages sought  In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of
was only $2,000.00, then clearly the trial court carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately
went way beyond that amount in determining injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or
the appropriate damages, inspite of the fact that with malice or bad faith. Not every case of mental
the Gillego eventually got back his baggage. anguish, fright or serious anxiety calls for the award of
moral damages.
 o Where in breaching the contract of carriage the contract and in the execution thereof, as well as
airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently in the enforcement of its terms, or any other
or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited kind of deceit.
to the natural and probable consequences of  While Gillego failed to cite any act of discourtesy,
the breach of the obligation which the parties discrimination or rudeness by employees of Air France,
had foreseen or could have reasonably this did not make his loss and moral suffering
foreseen. insignificant and less deserving of compensation.
o In such a case the liability does not include o In repeatedly ignoring his inquiries, Air France
moral and exemplary damages. employees exhibited an indifferent attitude
 Inattention to and lack of care for the interest of its without due regard for the inconvenience and
passengers who are entitled to its utmost anxiety he experienced after realizing that his
consideration, particularly as to their convenience, luggage was missing.
amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an o Air France was thus guilty of bad faith in
award of moral damages. breaching its contract of carriage with the
 Bad faith should be established by clear and convincing respondent, which entitles the latter to the
evidence. The settled rule is that the law always award of moral damages.
presumes good faith such that any person who seeks to
be awarded damages due to the acts of another has the The amounts awarded to respondent as moral and
burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or exemplary damages are excessive, unconscionable and
with ill motive. unreasonable.
 After a careful review, the Court found that Air France is
liable for moral damages. TC and CA did not err in finding  P1,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court is excessive and
that Air France acted in bad faith in repeatedly ignoring not proportionate to the loss or suffering inflicted on the
Gillego’s follow-up calls. passenger under the circumstances.
o The Court cannot accept the convenient excuse o The purpose of awarding moral damages is to
given by Air France that Gillego should be enable the injured party to obtain means,
faulted in allegedly not giving his hotel address diversion or amusement that will serve to
and telephone number. alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone
o It is difficult to believe that Gillego, who had just by reason of defendant's culpable action. On the
lost his single luggage containing all his other hand, the aim of awarding exemplary
necessities for his stay in a foreign land and his damages is to deter serious wrongdoings.
reference materials for a speaking engagement,  Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides that assessment of
would not give an information so vital such as damages is left to the discretion of the court according to
his hotel address and contact number to the the circumstances of each case.
airline counter where he had promptly and o This discretion is limited by the principle that
frantically filed his complaint. the amount awarded should not be palpably
o And even assuming arguendo that his Philippine excessive as to indicate that it was the result of
address and contact number were the only prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial
details he had provided for the PIR, still there court.
was no explanation as to why Air France never o Simply put, the amount of damages must be
communicated with him concerning his lost fair, reasonable and proportionate to the injury
baggage long after he had already returned to suffered.
the Philippines.  Where as in this case the air carrier failed to act timely
o While the missing luggage was eventually on the passenger’s predicament caused by its employees’
recovered, it was returned to Gillego only after mistake and more than ordinary inadvertence or
the trial of this case. inattention, and the passenger failed to show any act of
 There was not even any attempt to explain the reason for arrogance, discourtesy or rudeness committed by the air
the loss of luggage. Clearly, Air France did not give the carrier’s employees, the amounts of P200,000.00,
attention and care due to its passenger whose baggage P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages,
was not transported and delivered to him at his travel exemplary damages and attorney’s fees would be
destination and scheduled time. sufficient and justified.
o Inattention to and lack of care for the interest
of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost
consideration, particularly as to their
convenience, amount to bad faith which
entitles the passenger to an award of moral
damages.
o What the law considers as bad faith which may
furnish the ground for an award of moral
damages would be bad faith in securing the