11 Air France v. Carascoso and CA G.R. No.

L-21438 September 28, 1966 FACTS On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent,Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket fromManila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but atBangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the "first class"seat that he was occupying because, in the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento,there was a "white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat. When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused,and told defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body; acommotion ensued, and, according to said Ernesto G. Cuento, "many of the Filipinopassengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found out that Mr. Carrascoso washaving a hot discussion with the white man [manager], they came all across to Mr.Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man" and plaintiff reluctantly gave his "first class" seat in the plane. ISSUES & ARGUMENTSWas Carrascoso entitled to the first class seat he claims and therefore entitles todamages?HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI Yes. It is conceded in all quarters that on March 28, 1958 he paid to and received frompetitioner a first class ticket. But petitioner asserts that said ticket did not represent thetrue and complete intent and agreement of the parties; that said respondent knew that hedid not have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight, although he hadtourist class protection; that, accordingly, the issuance of a first class ticket was noguarantee that he would have a first class ride, but that such would depend upon theavailability of first class seats.If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat,notwithstanding the fact that seat availability in specific flights is therein confirmed, thenan air passenger is placed in the hollow of the hands of an airline. What security then cana passenger have? It will always be an easy matter for an airline aided by its employees, tostrike out the very stipulations in the ticket, and say that there was a verbal agreement tothe contrary. What if the passenger had a schedule to fulfill? We have long learned that,as a rule, a written document speaks a uniform language; that spoken word could benotoriously unreliable. If only to achieve stability in the relations between passenger andair carrier, adherence to the ticket so issued is desirable. Such is the case here. The lowercourts refused to believe the oral evidence intended to defeat the covenants in the ticket. Why, then, was he allowed to take a first class seat in the plane at Bangkok, if he had noseat or, if another had a better right to the seat? To authorize an award for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or badfaith. It is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad faith in the complaint.But, the inference of bad faith is there, it may be drawn from the facts and circumstancesset forth therein. The contract was averred to establish the relation between the parties.But the stress of the action is put on wrongful expulsion. It is, therefore, unnecessary toinquire as to whether or not there is sufficient averment in the complaint to justify anaward for moral damages. Deficiency in the complaint, if any, was cured by the evidence. An amendment thereof to conform to the evidence is not even required.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 areentitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities andabuses 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.