Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Instead of explaining to the white man the The evidence shows that the defendant violated its
improvidence committed by defendant's employees, contract of transportation with plaintiff in bad faith,
the manager adopted the more drastic step of ousting with the aggravating circumstances that defendant's
the plaintiff who was then safely ensconsced in his Manager in Bangkok went to the extent of threatening
rightful seat. We are strengthened in our belief that this the plaintiff in the presence of many passengers to
probably was what happened there, by the testimony have him thrown out of the airplane to give the "first
of defendant's witness Rafael Altonaga who, when class" seat that he was occupying to, again using the
asked to explain the meaning of the letters "O.K." words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, a "white man"
appearing on the tickets of plaintiff, said "that the whom he (defendant's Manager) wished to
space is confirmed for first class. Likewise, Zenaida accommodate, and the defendant has not proven that
Faustino, another witness for defendant, who was the this "white man" had any "better right" to occupy the
chief of the Reservation Office of defendant, testified "first class" seat that the plaintiff was occupying, duly
as follows: paid for, and for which the corresponding "first class"
ticket was issued by the defendant to him.40
"Q How does the person in the ticket-issuing office
know what reservation the passenger has arranged 5. The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act
with you? of its employees need not be essayed. It is well settled
A They call us up by phone and ask for the in law. 41 For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's
confirmation." (t.s.n., p. 247, June 19, 1959) manager, petitioner, his employer, must answer. Article
21 of the Civil Code says:
In this connection, we quote with approval what the
trial Judge has said on this point: ART. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
Why did the, using the words of witness Ernesto G. to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
Cuento, "white man" have a "better right" to the seat customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
occupied by Mr. Carrascoso? The record is silent. The the damage.
defendant airline did not prove "any better", nay, any
right on the part of the "white man" to the "First class" In parallel circumstances, we applied the foregoing
seat that the plaintiff was occupying and for which he legal precept; and, we held that upon the provisions of
paid and was issued a corresponding "first class" ticket. Article 2219 (10), Civil Code, moral damages are
recoverable. 42
If there was a justified reason for the action of the 6. A contract to transport passengers is quite different
defendant's Manager in Bangkok, the defendant could in kind and degree from any other contractual
have easily proven it by having taken the testimony of relation. 43And this, because of the relation which an
the said Manager by deposition, but defendant did not air-carrier sustains with the public. Its business is
do so; the presumption is that evidence willfully mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to
suppressed would be adverse if produced [Sec. 69, par avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The
(e), Rules of Court]; and, under the circumstances, the contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a relation
Court is constrained to find, as it does find, that the attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance of
Manager of the defendant airline in Bangkok not the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground
merely asked but threatened the plaintiff to throw him for an action for damages.
out of the plane if he did not give up his "first class"
seat because the said Manager wanted to Passengers do not contract merely for transportation.
accommodate, using the words of the witness Ernesto They have a right to be treated by the carrier's
G. Cuento, the "white man".38 employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due
consideration. They are entitled to be protected
It is really correct to say that the Court of Appeals in against personal misconduct, injurious language,
the quoted portion first transcribed did not use the indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is,
term "bad faith". But can it be doubted that the recital that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of
of facts therein points to bad faith? The manager not employees towards a passenger gives the latter an
only prevented Carrascoso from enjoying his right to a action for damages against the carrier. 44
first class seat; worse, he imposed his arbitrary will; he
forcibly ejected him from his seat, made him suffer the Thus, "Where a steamship company 45 had accepted a
humiliation of having to go to the tourist class passenger's check, it was a breach of contract and a
compartment - just to give way to another passenger tort, giving a right of action for its agent in the
whose right thereto has not been established. presence of third persons to falsely notify her that the
Certainly, this is bad faith. Unless, of course, bad faith check was worthless and demand payment under
has assumed a meaning different from what is threat of ejection, though the language used was not
understood in law. For, "bad faith" contemplates a insulting and she was not ejected." 46 And this,
"state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive because, although the relation of passenger and carrier
design or with some motive of self-interest or will or for is "contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless
ulterior purpose." 39 "the act that breaks the contract may be also a
tort". 47 And in another case, "Where a passenger on a
4
railroad train, when the conductor came to collect his Besides, from a reading of the transcript just quoted,
fare tendered him the cash fare to a point where the when the dialogue happened, the impact of the
train was scheduled not to stop, and told him that as startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be
soon as the train reached such point he would pay the felt. The excitement had not as yet died down.
cash fare from that point to destination, there was Statements then, in this environment, are admissible
nothing in the conduct of the passenger which justified as part of the res gestae. 50 For, they grow "out of the
the conductor in using insulting language to him, as by nervous excitement and mental and physical condition
calling him a lunatic," 48 and the Supreme Court of of the declarant". 51 The utterance of the purser
South Carolina there held the carrier liable for the regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous,
mental suffering of said passenger.1awphl.nt and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident.
Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. 52 It thus
Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part
with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso's action as of the res gestae.
we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion.
This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air At all events, the entry was made outside the
carrier a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper. Philippines. And, by an employee of petitioner. It would
have been an easy matter for petitioner to have
7. Petitioner draws our attention to respondent contradicted Carrascoso's testimony. If it were really
Carrascoso's testimony, thus true that no such entry was made, the deposition of
Q You mentioned about an attendant. Who is that the purser could have cleared up the matter.
attendant and purser?
A When we left already that was already in the trip We, therefore, hold that the transcribed testimony of
I could not help it. So one of the flight attendants Carrascoso is admissible in evidence.
approached me and requested from me my ticket and I
said, What for? and she said, "We will note that you 8. Exemplary damages are well awarded. The Civil
transferred to the tourist class". I said, "Nothing of that Code gives the court ample power to grant exemplary
kind. That is tantamount to accepting my transfer." And damages in contracts and quasi- contracts. The only
I also said, "You are not going to note anything there condition is that defendant should have "acted in a
because I am protesting to this transfer". wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
Q Was she able to note it? manner." 53 The manner of ejectment of respondent
A No, because I did not give my ticket. Carrascoso from his first class seat fits into this legal
Q About that purser? precept. And this, in addition to moral damages.54
A Well, the seats there are so close that you feel
uncomfortable and you don't have enough leg room, I 9. The right to attorney's fees is fully established. The
stood up and I went to the pantry that was next to me grant of exemplary damages justifies a similar
and the purser was there. He told me, "I have recorded judgment for attorneys' fees. The least that can be said
the incident in my notebook." He read it and translated is that the courts below felt that it is but just and
it to me because it was recorded in French "First equitable that attorneys' fees be given. 55 We do not
class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class intend to break faith with the tradition that discretion
against his will, and that the captain refused to well exercised as it was here should not be
intervene." disturbed.
Mr. VALTE
I move to strike out the last part of the testimony of 10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed
the witness because the best evidence would be the by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus:
notes. Your Honor. P25,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00, by way of
COURT exemplary damages, and P3,000.00 as attorneys' fees.
I will allow that as part of his testimony. 49 The task of fixing these amounts is primarily with the
trial court. 56 The Court of Appeals did not interfere with
Petitioner charges that the finding of the Court of the same. The dictates of good sense suggest that we
Appeals that the purser made an entry in his notebook give our imprimatur thereto. Because, the facts and
reading "First class passenger was forced to go to the circumstances point to the reasonableness thereof.57
tourist class against his will, and that the captain
refused to intervene" is predicated upon evidence On balance, we say that the judgment of the Court of
[Carrascoso's testimony above] which is incompetent. Appeals does not suffer from reversible error. We
We do not think so. The subject of inquiry is not the accordingly vote to affirm the same. Costs against
entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry petitioner. So ordered.
does not come within the proscription of the best Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala,
evidence rule. Such testimony is admissible. 49a Makalintal, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, J.P., J., took no part.