10.

AIR FRANCE VS RAFAEL CARRASCOSO, ca

TOPIC : QUASI- DELICT (No. 10)
Facts

Air France thru its authorized agent , Philippine Airlines

o Issued CARRASCOSO (Carras) a FIRST CLASS round trip ticket
from Manila to Rome
From Manila to Bangkok , CARRAS travelled in first class
But at Bangkok, the manager of Air France forced Carras to vacate the
1st class
o Because according to a witness CUENTO, the manager said that
there was a white man who has the better right to the seat.

RTC :
Sentenced Air France to pay to CARRAS the following
1. Moral Damages 25K
2. Exemplary
- 10K
3. Representing the difference in fare between the 1st class and tourist
class for the portion of the trip from BK to Rome - P393.20
4. Attorneys Fee
- P3,000
5. The cost of the suit
CA :
Only reduced no. 3 from 393 to 383.10
HENCE , AIR FRANCE asked relief from SC
Ground/Basis: CA failed to present or make complete findings of fact on
all the issues properly laid before it
ISSUE NO. 1 WAS CARRAS ENTITLED TO THE 1ST CLASS SEAT?
AIR FRANCE S CONTENTIONS :
- Carras paid for a first class ticket
- But the ticket did not represent the TRUE and COMPLETE intent and
agreement of the parties

That Carras knew that he did not confirmed reservations for 1st class
on any specific flight
But he had tourist class protection
That the issuance of the 1st class ticket was no guarantee that he
would have a first class ride
And such would depend on the availability of first class seats

COURT : The CA decision was affirmed

The ticket issued was indeed firs class
Oral evidence do not prevail over written evidence
- Even one of the witnesses stated that the ticket was confirmed
ISSUE NO. 2 : The award of moral damages
AIR FRANCE Carras actions is planted upon BREACH OF CONTRACT
- Tthat to authorized an award for moral damges there must be an
avement of fraud or bad faith
COURT :
1. There was a contract between air france and carras that the latter will
be given a first class seat
2. There was a breach of contract when airfrance failed to provide for the
first class accommodation
3. There was Bad faith - Carras was compelled to leave the seat after he
was already seated and to take the tourist seat instead
4. Due to such facts, Carras suffred inconvenience, embarrassment and
humiliations
a. Thereby causing him mental anguish., serious anxiety and
wounded feelings and social humiliation
b. Hence, moral damaged is awarded

There is no specific mention of BAD FAITH in the complaint

o But the inference of bad faith is present
"bad faith" contemplates a "state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or
with some motive of self-interest or will or for ulterior purpose."
There was bad faith because : Manager did prevented Carras from enjoying
what he paid for and imposed arbitrary will
- The manager preferred another passenger whos right has not been
established before the court
- Air France has failed to provide witnesses or evidence regarding this
matter
- The manager even threatened Carras to be thrown out

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. (CC)

Under the above article, employers are responsible for the tortuous
acts of their employees

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.
The present case is A QUASI DELICT . Hence, the DAMAGES ARE PROPER
Air frances duty with Carras is one attended with public duty
(Gi copy paste na nko ning last part :D )
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." 53 The manner of ejectment of respondent Carrascoso from
his first class seat fits into this legal precept. And this, in addition to
moral damages.54
9. The right to attorney's fees is fully established. The grant of
exemplary damages justifies a similar judgment for attorneys' fees.
The least that can be said is that the courts below felt that it is but just
and equitable that attorneys' fees be given. 55 We do not intend to
break faith with the tradition that discretion well exercised as it was
here should not be disturbed.
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. 56 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.