Title
Air France vs. Rafael Carrascoso and the Honorable Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-21438
Decision Date
Aug 28, 1966
Rafael Carrascoso, holding a first-class ticket, was forcibly moved to tourist class by Air France to accommodate a "white man," leading to a breach of contract and bad faith. Courts awarded damages for humiliation and breach.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151258)

Key Dates

  • March 28, 1958: Issuance of “First Class” round‐trip ticket from Manila to Rome via Lourdes.
  • March 30, 1958: Departure from Manila as part of a group of Filipino pilgrims.
  • August 28, 1966: Decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Applicable Law

  • 1935 Philippine Constitution, Article VIII, Section 12 (requirement for clear findings of facts and law).
  • Rules of Court: Rule 36 (Section 1), Rule 45 (Section 2), Rule 51 (Section 4).
  • Civil Code (pre-1987): Articles 21 (willful injury), 2180 (employer liability), 2229 (moral damages), 2232 (exemplary damages), 2208 (attorneys’ fees).

Factual Background

Carrascoso paid for and received a confirmed first‐class ticket. He traveled first‐class from Manila to Bangkok. At Bangkok, the airline’s manager forcibly removed him from his seat to accommodate another passenger, compelling him to occupy tourist class despite his confirmed entitlement. An accompanying purser recorded in his notebook that Carrascoso “was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene.”

Procedural History

The trial court awarded Carrascoso moral damages (P25,000), exemplary damages (P10,000), fare differential (P393.20), attorneys’ fees (P3,000), interest, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with slight adjustment to the fare refund (P383.10) and sustained all other awards. Air France sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court, challenging factual findings, entitlement to first‐class accommodation, and damage awards.

Sufficiency of Findings

Air France contended the Court of Appeals failed to make complete findings on all factual issues. Under the 1935 Constitution and Rules of Court, only “essential ultimate facts” must appear. A decision need not recount every piece of evidence or every defense contention. Here, the appellate decision sufficiently identified the determinative facts—confirmation of a first‐class ticket, wrongful ouster, and resultant injuries—satisfying constitutional and statutory mandates.

Certiorari Review Limited to Questions of Law

Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised on certiorari from a CA decision. Factual findings of the appellate court are conclusive. This Court may not reweigh evidence or disturb factual determinations unless no evidence supports them.

Right to First‐Class Seat Under Contract

Air France argued the ticket did not guarantee first‐class seating absent confirmed reservation at each stop. Both courts, however, credited documentary evidence and testimony establishing confirmation. The issuance of a ticket paid at first‐class rates and marked “O.K.” for confirmed space was held to impose a binding obligation on the carrier to honor that seat.

Bad Faith and Moral Damages

Carrascoso’s complaint alleged breach of contract, forced removal, and resulting humiliation, mental anguish, and wounded feelings. Although the complaint did not use the term “bad faith,” the circumstances implied it. The CA found that the manager’s forcible ejection amounted to bad faith—an affirmative wrongful act contrary to morals and social conventions—entitling Carrascoso to moral damages.

Employer Liability for Employee Acts

Under Civil Code Article 2180, an employer is liable for the willful misconduct of its employees. The manager’s intentional ouster of Carrascoso constituted a tortious act. Air France, as employer, therefore bore responsibility for the moral injury inflicted.

Exemplary Damages

Article 2232 authorizes exemplary damages where the defendant’s conduct is wanton, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent. The manager’s arbitrary and humiliating expulsion of a ticketed passenger met this standard, justifying an award of exemplary damages in addition to moral damages.

Attorneys’ Fees

Article 2208 empowers the court to award attorneys’ fees when exemplary damages are granted. Both lower courts exercised this discretion, awarding P3,000.00, which

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.