G.R. No.

L-21438

September 28, 1966

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

FACTS: Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to Rafael Carrascoso, one of 48 Filipino pilgrims bound for Lourdes, a first class round trip airplane ticket for the March 30, 1958, flight from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, Carrascoso travelled in first class. However, at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced him out of his seat in favor of a white man, who, the Manager alleged, had a better right to the seat. Carrascoso refused. Since many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class and came across to plead with Rafael, he reluctantly gave up his first class seat. Rafael later on filed a case in a Manila court which upheld his rights and the case was brought up to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Air France asserts that the ticket does not represent the true and complete intent and agreement of the parties and that the issuance of a first class ticket did not guarantee a first class ride (depends upon the availability of seats). The courts all held that the ticket, which is a contract to furnish a first class passage covering the Bangkok-Teheran leg, was dishonored with bad faith as Rafael was forced to leave his first class accommodation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat he claims

HELD: Rafael Carrascoso is entitled. 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. Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso's action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier a case of quasi-delict. As such, damages are proper.