Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Air France vs. Gillego: SUMMARY:Gillego, A Congressman Left Manila On Board Air France's Aircraft
Air France vs. Gillego: SUMMARY:Gillego, A Congressman Left Manila On Board Air France's Aircraft
AIR FRANCE vs. GILLEGO Symposium on Parliament Guardian of Human Rights to be held in Budapest,
December 15, 2010 Hungary and Tokyo, Japan from May 19 to 22, 1993.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Mica Maurinne M. Adao On May 16, 1993, Gillego left Manila on board Air France’s aircraft bound for
Paris, France. He arrived in Paris early morning of May 17, 1993. While
SUMMARY:Gillego, a congressman left Manila on board Air France’s aircraft waiting at the De’ Gaulle International Airport for his connecting flight to
bound for Paris, France. He was to attend as a keynote speaker in a conference Budapest he made arrangements for an earlier flight than he booked. He was
to be held in Budapest, Hungary and Tokyo, Japan. When in Paris, he arranged given a corresponding ticket and boarding pass and also a new baggage claim
for an earlier connecting flight to Budapest. When he arrived in Budapest, he stub for his checked-in luggage. However, upon arriving in Budapest, Gillego
was not able to locate his luggage. Despite assurance that it would be delivered was unable to locate his luggage at the claiming section. Air France
to him and repeated follow-ups, he did not recover his luggage. It contained representative verified from their computer that he had indeed a checked-in
his personal effects such as clothes, toiletries, medicines for his hypertension, luggage. He was advised to just wait for his luggage at his hotel and that they
and the speeches he had prepared, including the notes and reference materials would take charge of delivering the same to him that same day. But said
he needed for the conference. When he returned to Manila, he followed up luggage was never delivered despite follow-up inquiries by Gillego.
about his luggage but was ignored. He filed a case for breach of contract of
carriage and claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages. When he Upon his return to the Philippines, Gillego’s lawyer immediately wrote to
recovered his luggage (2 yrs after) he did not insist on his claim for actual Station Manager of Air France complaining about the lost luggage and the
damages so TC granted him moral damages (1m), exemplary damages (500k), resulting damages he suffered while in Budapest. Gillego claimed that his
and attorney’s fees (50k). CA affirmed. SC agreed with TC and CA that Air single luggage contained his personal effects such as clothes, toiletries,
france is guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, but reduced the medicines for his hypertension, and the speeches he had prepared, including
award of damages. the notes and reference materials he needed for the conference. He was thus
left with only his travel documents, pocket money and the clothes he was
DOCTRINE: In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the wearing. Because of the failure to deliver his luggage despite assurances and
breach must be wanton and deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted his repeated follow-ups, Gillego was forced to shop for personal items
fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. Not every case of mental anguish, including new clothes and his medicines. Aside from these unnecessary
fright or serious anxiety calls for the award of moral damages. Where in expenditures of about $1,000, he had to prepare another speech, in which he
breaching the contract of carriage the airline is not shown to have acted had difficulty due to lack of data and information. He thus demanded the sum
fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and of 1 million from Air France as compensation for his loss, inconvenience and
probable consequences of the breach of the obligation which the parties had moral damages. Air France, however, continued to ignore his repeated follow-
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does ups regarding his lost luggage.
not include moral and exemplary damages.
On July 13, 1993, Gillego filed a complaint for damages against Air France. He
Inattention to and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are asserted that as a common carrier which advertises and offers its services to
entitled to its utmost consideration, particularly as to their convenience, the public, Air France is under obligation to observe extraordinary diligence in
amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an award of moral the vigilance over checked-in luggage and to see to it that his luggage
damages. entrusted to petitioner’s custody would accompany him on his flight and/or
FACTS: could be claimed by him upon arrival at his point of destination or delivered to
Sometime in April 1993, Bonifacio H. Gillego, then incumbent Congressman of him without delay. Gillego claimed for actual damages ($2,000.00 or P40,000),
the 2nd District of Sorsogon and Chairman of the House of Representatives moral damages (P1,000,000), exemplary damages (P500,000), attorney’s fees
Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights, was invited to participate as (P50,000) and costs of suit.
Upon the facts established, the damages awarded are definitely not
Air France, in its answer, contended that its liability for lost checked-in proportionate or commensurate to the wrong or injury supposedly inflicted.
baggage is governed by the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Gillego was able to reconstruct the speeches, notes and study guides he had
Rules Relating to International Carriage. Under the said treaty, its liability for earlier prepared for the conference in Budapest and Tokyo, and to attend,
lost or delayed registered baggage of respondent is limited to 250 francs per speak and participate therein as scheduled. Since he prepared the research
kilogram or US$20.00, which constitutes liquidated damages and hence and wrote his speech, considering his acknowledged and long-standing
Gillego is not entitled to any further damage. Air France averred that it has expertise in the field of human rights in the Philippines, Gillego should have
taken all necessary measures to avoid loss of Gillego’s baggage, the contents of had no difficulty delivering his speech even without his notes. In addition,
which he did not declare, and that it has no intent to cause such loss, much less there is no evidence that members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union made
knew that such loss could occur. The loss of luggage is due to or occasioned by derogatory statements or even knew that he was unprepared for the
force majeure or fortuitous event or other causes beyond the carrier’s control. conference. Bearing in mind that the actual damages sought was only
Diligent, sincere and timely efforts were exerted to locate the missing luggage.. $2,000.00, then clearly the trial court went way beyond that amount in
The claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees determining the appropriate damages, inspite of the fact that the Gillego
therefore have no basis in fact and in law, and are, moreover speculative and eventually got back his baggage.
unconscionable.
Air France argues that even assuming that Gillego was entitled to moral and
Trial court ruled in favor of Gillego and ordered Air France to pay 1 million as exemplary damages, the sums adjudged should be modified or reduced. It is
moral damages, 500,000 as exemplary damages, 50,000 as attorney’s fees, and stressed that petitioner or its agents were never rude or discourteous toward
the costs. TC found Air France grossly negligent for failing to deliver the respondent; he was not subjected to humiliating treatment or comments as in
luggage and ignoring Gillego’s follow-ups. other cases. The mere fact that Gillego was a Congressman should not result in
an automatic increase in the moral and exemplary damages recoverable. As
CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Air France committed a breach of held in Kierulf v.CA, the social and financial standing of a claimant may be
contract by its failure to deliver the luggage which has not been satisfactorily considered only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite
explained. Instead of justifying the delay (Later on, the luggage was apparently the offender’s knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.
recovered but was return only after the trial of the case which is 2 yrs after it
was lost), Air France took refuge under the provisions of the Warsaw A business intended to serve the travelling public primarily, a contract of
Convention to escape liability. Neither was there any showing of apology on carriage is imbued with public interest. The law governing common carriers
the part of Air France as to the delay. Furthermore, Air France even faulted consequently imposes an exacting standard. Article 1735 of the Civil Code
Gillego for not leaving a local address in Budapest in order for them to contact provides that in case of lost or damaged goods, common carriers are
him in the event the luggage is found. This actuation is a clear showing of presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove
willful misconduct and a deliberate design to avoid liability. It amounts to bad that they observed extraordinary diligence as required by Article 1733. Thus,
faith. MR was denied. Hence, this petition. in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does
not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All
ISSUES and RULING that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-
1. Are amounts awarded to respondent as moral and exemplary damages are performance by the carrier.
excessive, unconscionable and unreasonable? YES
2. Is Air France guilty of gross negligence, bad faith and willful misconduct and That Gillego’s checked-in luggage was not found upon arrival at his destination
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner, to and was not returned to him until about two years later is not disputed. The
justify the award of moral and exemplary damages? YES action filed is founded on such breach of the contract of carriage with Air
France who offered no satisfactory explanation for the unreasonable delay in
RATIO: the delivery of thes baggage. The presumption of negligence was not
overcome and hence its liability for the delay was sufficiently established.
However, upon receipt of the said luggage during the pendency of the case in While Gillego failed to cite any act of discourtesy, discrimination or rudeness
the trial court, Gillego did not anymore press on his claim for actual or by employees of Air France, this did not make his loss and moral suffering
compensatory damages and neither did he adduce evidence of the actual insignificant and less deserving of compensation. In repeatedly ignoring his
amount of loss and damage incurred by such delayed delivery of his luggage. inquiries, Air France employees exhibited an indifferent attitude without due
Consequently, the trial court proceeded to determine only the propriety of his regard for the inconvenience and anxiety he experienced after realizing that
claim for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. his luggage was missing. Air France was thus guilty of bad faith in breaching
its contract of carriage with the respondent, which entitles the latter to the
[See Doctrine] award of moral damages.
Bad faith should be established by clear and convincing evidence. The settled However, we agree with petitioner that the sum of P1,000,000.00 awarded by
rule is that the law always presumes good faith such that any person who the trial court is excessive and not proportionate to the loss or suffering
seeks to be awarded damages due to the acts of another has the burden of inflicted on the passenger under the circumstances.
proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive.
The purpose of awarding moral damages is to enable the injured party to
After a careful review, the Court found that Air France is liable for moral obtain means, diversion or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral
damages. TC and CA did not err in finding that Air France acted in bad faith in suffering he has undergone by reason of defendant's culpable action. On the
repeatedly ignoring Gillego’s follow-up calls. The Court cannot accept the other hand, the aim of awarding exemplary damages is to deter serious
convenient excuse given by Air France that Gillego should be faulted in wrongdoings. Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides that assessment of
allegedly not giving his hotel address and telephone number. It is difficult to damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of
believe that Gillego, who had just lost his single luggage containing all his each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that the amount awarded
necessities for his stay in a foreign land and his reference materials for a should not be palpably excessive as to indicate that it was the result of
speaking engagement, would not give an information so vital such as his hotel prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court. Simply put, the amount of
address and contact number to the airline counter where he had promptly and damages must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the injury suffered.
frantically filed his complaint. And even assuming arguendo that his Philippine
address and contact number were the only details he had provided for the PIR, Where as in this case the air carrier failed to act timely on the passenger’s
still there was no explanation as to why Air France never communicated with predicament caused by its employees’ mistake and more than ordinary
him concerning his lost baggage long after he had already returned to the inadvertence or inattention, and the passenger failed to show any act of
Philippines. While the missing luggage was eventually recovered, it was arrogance, discourtesy or rudeness committed by the air carrier’s employees,
returned to Gillego only after the trial of this case. the amounts of P200,000.00, P50,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages,
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees would be sufficient and justified.
There was not even any attempt to explain the reason for the loss of luggage.
Clearly, Air France did not give the attention and care due to its passenger
whose baggage was not transported and delivered to him at his travel
destination and scheduled time. 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. 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 contract and in the execution thereof, as well as in
the enforcement of its terms, or any other kind of deceit.