[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
124 views2 pages

Air France Vs Carrascoso

This case involves a Filipino passenger, Rafael Carrascoso, who purchased a first class ticket on Air France from Manila to Rome. However, when the plane stopped in Bangkok, the Air France manager forced Carrascoso to give up his first class seat to a white man. When Carrascoso refused, a commotion ensued and other Filipino passengers pressured Carrascoso to reluctantly give up the seat. The court had to determine if this violation by the air carrier constituted a case of quasi-delict. The court held that as an air carrier, Air France has a public duty in its relationship with passengers. Forcing a passenger to give up their paid seat against their will violates

Uploaded by

jdg jdg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views2 pages

Air France Vs Carrascoso

This case involves a Filipino passenger, Rafael Carrascoso, who purchased a first class ticket on Air France from Manila to Rome. However, when the plane stopped in Bangkok, the Air France manager forced Carrascoso to give up his first class seat to a white man. When Carrascoso refused, a commotion ensued and other Filipino passengers pressured Carrascoso to reluctantly give up the seat. The court had to determine if this violation by the air carrier constituted a case of quasi-delict. The court held that as an air carrier, Air France has a public duty in its relationship with passengers. Forcing a passenger to give up their paid seat against their will violates

Uploaded by

jdg jdg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

5.

G.R. No. L-21438             September 28, 1966


AIR FRANCE, petitioner,
vs.
RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Facts:

Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes
on March 30, 1958.

On March 28, 1958, the defendnant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines,
Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to
Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, 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; a commotion
ensued, and, according to said Ernesto G. Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in
the tourist class; when they found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having 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.

Issue:

Whether or not the violation made by the air carrier a case of quasi-delict

Held:

Yes.

A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other contractual
relation. 43 And this, because of the relation which an air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business
is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers.
The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or
malfeasance of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for damages.

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. 44

Thus, "Where a steamship company 45 had accepted a passenger's check, it was a breach of


contract and a tort, giving a right of action for its agent in the presence of third persons to falsely
notify her that the check was worthless and demand payment under threat of ejection, though the
language used was not insulting and she was not ejected." 46 And this, because, although the
relation of passenger and carrier is "contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act that
breaks the contract may be also a tort". 47 And in another case, "Where a passenger on a railroad
train, when the conductor came to collect his fare tendered him the cash fare to a point where the
train was scheduled not to stop, and told him that as soon as the train reached such point he would
pay the cash fare from that point to destination, there was nothing in the conduct of the passenger
which justified the conductor in using insulting language to him, as by calling him a lunatic," 48 and
the Supreme Court of South Carolina there held the carrier liable for the mental suffering of said
passenger. 1awphîl.nèt

Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso's
action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by
the petitioner air carrier — a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.

You might also like