Air France vs Rafael Carrascoso There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso.
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to
Civil Law Torts and Damages Negligence Malfeasance Quasi-Delict
Remedial Law Evidence Hearsay Rule Res Gestae Startling Event
In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome
from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a
stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat
because a white man allegedly has a better right than him. Carrascoso protested but when
things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and
was transferred to the planes tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for
damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified,
among others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist class, he went to the planes pantry
where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he noted in the planes journal
the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain
refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded
damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a
first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because
allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the note made
by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not
presented in court is admissible in evidence.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa
aquiliana.
Culpa Contractual
furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air
France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith
when Air Frances employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation
berth after he was already, seated and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he
suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental anguish,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first class
ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim is
simply incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and
Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract
merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carriers 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. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one
attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos action is placed upon his wrongful
expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France a case of quasi-delict. Damages
are proper.
HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The subject
of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come within
the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible. Besides, when the
dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact of the startling occurrence
was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements
then, in this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser
regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the
ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the
hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.
Singson vs BPI
23 SCRA 1117
FACTS: Singson, was one of the defendants in a civil case, in which judgment had been
rendered sentencing him and his co-defendants therein Lobregat and Villa-Abrille & Co., to pay
a sum of money to the plaintiff therein. Said judgment became final and executory as only
against Ville-Abrille for its failure to file an appeal. A writ of garnishment was subsequently
served upon BPI in which the Singsons had a current account insofar as Villa-Abrilles
credits against the Bank were concerned.
Upon receipt of the said Writ of Garnishment, a clerk of the bank, upon reading the name of the
Singson in the title of the Writ of Garnishment as a party defendants, without further reading the
body and informing himself that said garnishment was merely intended for the deposits of
defendant Villa-Abrille & Co., et al, prepared a letter informing Singson of the garnishment of his
deposits by the plaintiff in that case.
Subsequently, two checks issued by the plaintiff Julian C. Singson, one in favor of B. M. Glass
Service and another in favor of the Lega Corporation, were dishonored by the bank. B. M. Glass
Service then wrote to Singson that the check was not honored by BPI because his account
therein had already been garnished and that they are now constrained to close his credit
account with them.
Singson wrote to BPI, claiming that his name was not included in the Writ of Execution and
Notice of Garnishment, which was served upon the bank. The defendants lost no time to rectify
the mistake that had been inadvertently committed.
Thus this action for damages.
ISSUE: WON the existence of a contract between the parties bars a plaintiffs claim for damages
based on torts?
HELD: NO. The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a
tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of damages therefore. Indeed,
this view has been, in effect, reiterated in a comparatively recent case. Thus, in Air France vs.
Carrascoso, involving an airplane passenger who, despite his first-class ticket, had been illegally
ousted from his first-class accommodation and compelled to take a seat in the tourist
compartment, was held entitled to recover damages from the air-carrier, upon the ground of tort
on the latters part, for, although the relation between a passenger and a carrier is contractual
both in origin and nature the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
In view, however, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering, particularly, the
circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the President of the
bank realized the mistake he and his subordinate employee had committed, the Court finds that
an award of nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven in the sum of
P1,000, in addition to attorneys fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiffs
rights.
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Inc. vs Court of Appeals
64 SCRA 427
Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes
In February 1963, Ilagan was driving a bus owned by Batangas Laguna Tayaban Bus Company
along Manila South Super Highway. He sped pass a big cargo truck thereby taking the opposite
lane and he hit the car driven by a certain de los Reyes which resulted to the latters death and
the latters nieces death and causing serious injuries to the other car passengers. Ilagan was
sued for homicide through reckless imprudence and while the case was pending in the CA the
victims sued Ilagan and BLTB for damages via an independent civil action based on Article
2180. BLTB assailed the suit as it invoked the opinion penned by Justice Capistrano in Corpus
vs Paje which states that under Article 33 of the Civil Code it excludes criminal negligence as
one of those which an independent civil action can be filed, hence homicide through reckless
imprudence or criminal negligence comes under the general rule that the acquittal of the
defendant in the criminal action is a bar to his civil liability based upon the same criminal act
notwithstanding that the injured party reserved his right to institute a separate civil action; and
based on this, BLTB wanted the dismissal of the civil suits pending the criminal suit in the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not a civil suit can be filed independently of the criminal negligence case
pending before the CA.
HELD: Yes. The opinion of Justice Capistrano in Corpus vs Paje is not controlling because it is
not doctrinal this is because the majority of the court did not agree with it. Also, the Corpus
case was different because the damages claimed there were based on the same criminal
negligence. But in the case at bar, the damages sought to be recovered were based on quasi-
delict or Article 2176 & 2180 of the Civil Code which is an independent civil action.
PSBA V. CA (G.R. NO. 84698)
Facts:
Private respondents sought to adjudge petitioner PSBA and its officers liable for the death of
Carlitos Bautista, a third year commerce student who was stabbed while on the premises of
PSBA by elements from outside the school. Private respondents are suing under the law on
quasi-delicts alleging the school and its officers negligence, recklessness and lack of safety
precautions before, during, and after the attack on the victim. Petitioners moved to dismiss the
suit but were denied by the trial court. CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not PSBA may be held liable under quasi-delicts. Prudent: denied liability averred that it had exercised due diligence in the selection
and surpervision of its security guards
Ruling: NO.
LRTA and Roman: presented evidence
Prudent and Escartin: demurrer contending that Navidad had failed to prove that
Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between the PSBA
Escartin was negligent in his assigned task
and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A perusal of Article 2176
shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual
RTC: In favour of widow and against Prudent and Escartin, complaint against LRT and Roman
obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or
were dismissed for lack of merit
implied.
CA: reversed by exonerating Prudent and held LRTA and Roman liable
When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established
a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to ISSUE: W/N LRTA and Roman should be liable according to the contract of carriage
comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that
would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher HELD: NO. Affirmed with Modification: (a) nominal damages is DELETED (CANNOT co-exist w/
education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the schools compensatory damages) (b) Roman is absolved.
academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations. Necessarily, the school must
Law and jurisprudence dictate that a common carrier, both from the nature of its business and
ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises
for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty off exercising utmost diligence in ensuring
and to prevent the breakdown thereof.
the safety of passengers
In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is, as yet, no finding that the
Civil Code:
contract between the school and Bautista had been breached thru the formers negligence in
providing proper security measures. This would be for the trial court to determine. And, even if
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
there be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of contractual
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for
obligation only.
all the circumstances

LRT V NAVIDAD
Art. 1756. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
FACTS:
diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755

October 14, 1993, 7:30 p.m. : Drunk Nicanor Navidad (Nicanor) entered the EDSA
Art. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the
LRT station after purchasing a token.
negligence or wilful acts of the formers employees, although such employees may have acted
While Nicanor was standing at the platform near the LRT tracks, the guard Junelito
beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers
Escartin approached him.
Due to misunderstanding, they had a fist fight This liability of the common carriers does NOT cease upon proof that they Exercised all the
Nicanor fell on the tracks and killed instantaneously upon being hit by a moving train diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees
operated by Rodolfo Roman
December 8, 1994: The widow of Nicanor, along with her children, filed a complaint for Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the

damages against Escartin, Roman, LRTA, Metro Transit Org. Inc. and Prudent wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carriers employees

(agency of security guards) for the death of her husband. through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or

LRTA and Roman filed a counter-claim against Nicanor and a cross-claim against stopped the act or omission.

Escartin and Prudent

Carriers presumed to be at fault or been negligent and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is
relieaved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and
the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to
force majeure
Where it hires its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent
firm to undertake the task, the common carrier is NOT relieved of its responsibilities under the
contract of carriage
GR: Prudent can be liable only for tort under Art. 2176 and related provisions in conjunction with
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. (Tort may arise even under a contract, where tort [quasi-delict
liability] is that which breaches the contract)
EX: if employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee, employer can be
made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees.
EX to the EX: Upon showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee
Factual finding of the CA: NO link bet. Prudent and the death of Nicanor for the reason
that the negligence of Escartin was NOT proven
NO showing that Roman himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also
be absolved from liability
Contractual tie bet. LRT and Nicanor is NOT itself a juridical relation bet. Nicanor and
Roman
Roman can be liable only for his own fault or negligence
ISSUES:(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death. (2) Whether or not
Escartin and/or Prudent are liable. (3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with
compensatory damages.
HELD:
(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise
the high diligence required of a common carrier.
(2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New Civil
Code.
(3) No. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages.
RATIO:
Liability of LRTA Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code
A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in
carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only during
the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where they ought
to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.
Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through
the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of
other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through theexercise of due
diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a
carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the
passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its
employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen
event or to force majeure.
Liability of Security Agency If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under Art. 2176
in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is established, the
employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the diligence
of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach How then must the liability of the
common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be
described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the
same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa
aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even
under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act
which constitutes a breach of ontract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual
liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been
breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.
Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable.
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an established rule that nominal
damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The award was deleted.