Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-21438 September 28, 1966

A R !RANCE, petitioner, vs. RA!AEL CARRASCOSO "#$ t%e &ONORA'LE COURT O! APPEALS, respondents. Lichauco, Picazo and Agcaoili for petitioner. Bengzon Villegas and Zarraga for respondent R. Carrascoso.

SANC&E(, J.: The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced petitioner to pa! respondent Rafael Carrascoso P"#,$$$.$$ b! %a! of &oral da&a'es( P $,$$$.$$ as e)e&plar! da&a'es( P*+*."$ representin' the difference in fare bet%een first class and tourist class for the portion of the trip Ban',o,-Ro&e, these various a&ounts %ith interest at the le'al rate, fro& the date of the filin' of the co&plaint until paid( plus P*,$$$.$$ for attorne!s. fees( and the costs of suit. /n appeal," the Court of Appeals sli'htl! reduced the a&ount of refund on Carrascoso.s plane tic,et fro& P*+*."$ to P*0*. $, and voted to affir& the appealed decision 1in all other respects1, %ith costs a'ainst petitioner. The case is no% before us for revie% on certiorari. The facts declared b! the Court of Appeals as 1 full! supported b! the evidence of record1, are2 Plaintiff, a civil en'ineer, %as a &e&ber of a 'roup of 30 Filipino pil'ri&s that left Manila for 4ourdes on March *$, +#0. /n March "0, +#0, the defendant, Air France, throu'h its authori5ed a'ent, Philippine Air 4ines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a 1first class1 round trip airplane tic,et fro& Manila to Ro&e. Fro& Manila to Ban',o,, plaintiff travelled in 1first class1, but at Ban',o,, the Mana'er of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the 1first class1 seat that he %as occup!in' because, in the %ords of the %itness Ernesto 6. Cuento, there %as a 1%hite &an1, %ho, the Mana'er alle'ed, had a 1better ri'ht1 to the seat. 7hen as,ed to vacate his 1first class1 seat, the plaintiff, as %as to be e)pected, refused, and told defendant.s Mana'er that his seat %ould be ta,en over his dead bod!( a co&&otion ensued, and, accordin' to said Ernesto 6. Cuento, 1&an! of the Filipino passen'ers 'ot nervous in the tourist class( %hen the! found out that Mr. Carrascoso %as havin' a hot discussion %ith the %hite &an 8&ana'er9, the! ca&e all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to 'ive his seat to the %hite &an1 :Transcript, p. ", ;earin' of Ma! "<, +#+=( and plaintiff reluctantl! 'ave his 1first class1 seat in the plane.*

. The trust of the relief petitioner no% see,s is that %e revie% 1all the findin's1 3 of respondent Court of Appeals. Petitioner char'es that respondent court failed to &a,e co&plete findin's of fact on all the issues properl! laid before it. 7e are as,ed to consider facts favorable to petitioner, and then, to overturn the appellate court.s decision. Co&in' into focus is the constitutional &andate that 1No decision shall be rendered b! an! court of record %ithout e)pressin' therein clearl! and distinctl! the facts and the la% on %hich it is based1. # This is echoed in the statutor! de&and that a >ud'&ent deter&inin' the &erits of the case shall state 1clearl! and distinctl! the facts and the la% on %hich it is based1( < and that 1Ever! decision of the Court of Appeals shall contain co&plete findin's of fact on all issues properl! raised before it1. ? A decision %ith absolutel! nothin' to support it is a nullit!. It is open to direct attac,. 0 The la%, ho%ever, solel! insists that a decision state the 1essential ulti&ate facts1 upon %hich the court.s conclusion is dra%n. + A court of >ustice is not hidebound to %rite in its decision ever! bit and piece of evidence $ presented b! one part! and the other upon the issues raised. Neither is it to be burdened %ith the obli'ation 1to specif! in the sentence the facts1 which a party "considered as pro ed". This is but a part of the &ental process fro& %hich the Court dra%s the essential ulti&ate facts. A decision is not to be so clo''ed %ith details such that proli)it!, if not confusion, &a! result. @o lon' as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains the necessar! facts to %arrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to %ithhold therefro& 1an! specific findin' of facts %ith respect to the evidence for the defense1. Because as this Court %ell observed, 1There is no la% that so reAuires1. " Indeed, 1the &ere failure to specif! :in the decision= the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for refusin' to believe the& is not sufficient to hold the sa&e contrar! to the reAuire&ents of the provisions of la% and the Constitution1. It is in this settin' that in !anig"ue, it %as held that the &ere fact that the findin's 1%ere based entirel! on the evidence for the prosecution %ithout ta,in' into consideration or even &entionin' the appellant.s side in the controvers! as sho%n b! his o%n testi&on!1, %ould not vitiate the >ud'&ent. * If the court did not recite in the decision the testi&on! of each %itness for, or each ite& of evidence presented b!, the defeated part!, it does not &ean that the court has overloo,ed such testi&on! or such ite& of evidence. 3 At an! rate, the le'al presu&ptions are that official dut! has been re'ularl! perfor&ed, and that all the &atters %ithin an issue in a case %ere laid before the court and passed upon b! it. # Findin's of fact, %hich the Court of Appeals is reAuired to &a,e, &a!be defined as 1the %ritten state&ent of the ulti&ate facts as found b! the court ... and essential to support the decision and >ud'&ent rendered thereon1. < The! consist of the court.s "conclusions" %ith respect to the deter#inati e facts in issue1. ? A Auestion of la%, upon the other hand, has been declared as 1one %hich does not call for an e)a&ination of the probative value of the evidence presented b! the parties.1 0 ". B! statute, 1onl! Auestions of la% &a! be raised1 in an appeal b! certiorari fro& a >ud'&ent of the Court of Appeals. + That >ud'&ent is conclusive as to the facts. It is not appropriatel! the business of this Court to alter the facts or to revie% the Auestions of fact. "$ 7ith these 'uideposts, %e no% face the proble& of %hether the findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals support its >ud'&ent. *. 7as Carrascoso entitled to the first class seat he clai&sB It is conceded in all Auarters that on March "0, +#0 he paid to and received fro& petitioner a first class tic,et. But petitioner asserts that said tic,et did not represent the true and co&plete intent and a'ree&ent of the parties( that said respondent ,ne% that he did not have confir&ed reservations

for first class on an! specific fli'ht, althou'h he had tourist class protection( that, accordin'l!, the issuance of a first class tic,et %as no 'uarantee that he %ould have a first class ride, but that such %ould depend upon the availabilit! of first class seats. These are &atters %hich petitioner has thorou'hl! presented and discussed in its brief before the Court of Appeals under its third assi'n&ent of error, %hich reads2 1The trial court erred in findin' that plaintiff had confir&ed reservations for, and a ri'ht to, first class seats on the 1definite1 se'&ents of his >ourne!, particularl! that fro& @ai'on to Beirut1. " And, the Court of Appeals disposed of this contention thus2 Cefendant see&s to capitali5e on the ar'u&ent that the issuance of a first-class tic,et %as no 'uarantee that the passen'er to %ho& the sa&e had been issued, %ould be acco&&odated in the first-class co&part&ent, for as in the case of plaintiff he had !et to &a,e arran'e&ents upon arrival at ever! station for the necessar! first-class reservation. 7e are not i&pressed b! such a reasonin'. 7e cannot understand ho% a reputable fir& li,e defendant airplane co&pan! could have the indiscretion to 'ive out tic,ets it never &eant to honor at all. It received the correspondin' a&ount in pa!&ent of first-class tic,ets and !et it allo%ed the passen'er to be at the &erc! of its e&plo!ees. It is &ore in ,eepin' %ith the ordinar! course of business that the co&pan! should ,no% %hether or not the tic,ets it issues are to be honored or not."" Not that the Court of Appeals is alone. The trial court si&ilarl! disposed of petitioner.s contention, thus2 /n the fact that plaintiff paid for, and %as issued a 1First class1 tic,et, there can be no Auestion. Apart fro& his testi&on!, see plaintiff.s E)hibits 1A1, 1A- 1, 1B1, 1B- ,1 1B-"1, 1C1 and 1C- 1, and defendant.s o%n %itness, Rafael Altona'a, confir&ed plaintiff.s testi&on! and testified as follo%s2 D. In these tic,ets there are &ar,s 1/.E.1 Fro& %hat !ou ,no%, %hat does this /E &eanB A. That the space is confir&ed. D. Confir&ed for first classB A. Fes, 1first class1. :Transcript, p. <+= ))) ))) )))

Cefendant tried to prove b! the testi&on! of its %itnesses 4uis Galdaria'a and Rafael Altona'a that althou'h plaintiff paid for, and %as issued a 1first class1 airplane tic,et, the tic,et %as sub>ect to confir&ation in ;on',on'. The court cannot 'ive credit to the testi&on! of said %itnesses. /ral evidence cannot prevail over %ritten evidence, and plaintiff.s E)hibits 1A1, 1A-l1, 1B1, 1B-l1, 1C1 and 1C- 1 belie the testi&on! of said %itnesses, and clearl! sho% that the plaintiff %as issued, and paid for, a first class tic,et %ithout an! reservation %hatever. Further&ore, as hereinabove sho%n, defendant.s o%n %itness Rafael Altona'a testified that the reservation for a 1first class1 acco&&odation for the plaintiff %as confir&ed. The court cannot believe that after such confir&ation defendant had a verbal understandin' %ith plaintiff that the 1first class1 tic,et issued to hi& b! defendant %ould be sub>ect to confir&ation in ;on',on'. "*

7e have heretofore adverted to the fact that e)cept for a sli'ht difference of a fe% pesos in the a&ount refunded on Carrascoso.s tic,et, the decision of the Court of First Instance %as affir&ed b! the Court of Appeals in all other respects. 7e hold the vie% that such a >ud'&ent of affir&ance has &er'ed the >ud'&ent of the lo%er court. "3 I&plicit in that affir&ance is a deter&ination b! the Court of Appeals that the proceedin' in the Court of First Instance %as free fro& pre>udicial error and 1all Auestions raised b! the assi'n&ents of error and all Auestions that &i'ht have been raised are to be re'arded as finall! ad>udicated a'ainst the appellant1. @o also, the >ud'&ent affir&ed 1&ust be re'arded as free fro& all error1. "# 7e reached this polic! construction because nothin' in the decision of the Court of Appeals on this point %ould su''est that its findin's of fact are in an! %a! at %ar %ith those of the trial court. Nor %as said affir&ance b! the Court of Appeals upon a 'round or 'rounds different fro& those %hich %ere &ade the basis of the conclusions of the trial court. "< If, as petitioner underscores, a first-class-tic,et holder is not entitled to a first class seat, not%ithstandin' the fact that seat availabilit! in specific fli'hts is therein confir&ed, then an air passen'er is placed in the hollo% of the hands of an airline. 7hat securit! then can a passen'er haveB It %ill al%a!s be an eas! &atter for an airline aided b! its e&plo!ees, to stri,e out the ver! stipulations in the tic,et, and sa! that there %as a verbal a'ree&ent to the contrar!. 7hat if the passen'er had a schedule to fulfillB 7e have lon' learned that, as a rule, a %ritten docu&ent spea,s a unifor& lan'ua'e( that spo,en %ord could be notoriousl! unreliable. If onl! to achieve stabilit! in the relations bet%een passen'er and air carrier, adherence to the tic,et so issued is desirable. @uch is the case here. The lo%er courts refused to believe the oral evidence intended to defeat the covenants in the tic,et. The fore'oin' are the considerations %hich point to the conclusion that there are facts upon %hich the Court of Appeals predicated the findin' that respondent Carrascoso had a first class tic,et and %as entitled to a first class seat at Ban',o,, %hich is a stopover in the @ai'on to Beirut le' of the fli'ht. "? 7e perceive no 1%elter of distortions b! the Court of Appeals of petitioner.s state&ent of its position1, as char'ed b! petitioner. "0 Nor do %e subscribe to petitioner.s accusation that respondent Carrascoso 1surreptitiousl! too, a first class seat to provo,e an issue1. "+ And this because, as petitioner states, Carrascoso %ent to see the Mana'er at his office in Ban',o, 1to confir& &! seat and because fro& @ai'on I %as told a'ain to see the Mana'er1. *$ 7h!, then, %as he allo%ed to ta,e a first class seat in the plane at Ban',o,, if he had no seatB /r, if another had a better ri'ht to the seatB 3. Petitioner assails respondent court.s a%ard of &oral da&a'es. Petitioner.s trenchant clai& is that Carrascoso.s action is planted upon breach of contract( that to authori5e an a%ard for &oral da&a'es there &ust be an aver&ent of fraud or bad faith( * and that the decision of the Court of Appeals fails to &a,e a findin' of bad faith. The pivotal alle'ations in the co&plaint bearin' on this issue are2 *. That ... plaintiff entered into a contract of air carria'e %ith the Philippine Air 4ines for a valuable consideration, the latter actin' as 'eneral a'ents for and in behalf of the defendant, under %hich said contract, plaintiff %as entitled to, as defendant a'reed to furnish plaintiff, First Class passa'e on defendant.s plane durin' the entire duration of plaintiff.s tour of Europe %ith ;on',on' as startin' point up to and until plaintiff.s return trip to Manila, ... . 3. That, durin' the first t%o le's of the trip fro& ;on',on' to @ai'on and fro& @ai'on to Ban',o,, defendant furnished to the plaintiff First Class acco&&odation but onl! after protestations, ar'u&ents andHor insistence %ere &ade b! the plaintiff %ith defendant.s e&plo!ees.

#. That finall!, defendant failed to pro ide First Class passa'e, but instead furnished plaintiff onl! $ourist Class acco&&odations fro& Ban',o, to Teheran andHor Casablanca, ... the plaintiff has been co#pelled b! defendant.s e&plo!ees to leave the First Class acco&&odation berths at Ban',o, after he was already seated. <. That conseAuentl!, the plaintiff, desirin' no repetition of the inconvenience and e&barrass&ents brou'ht b! defendant.s breach of contract %as forced to ta,e a Pan A&erican 7orld Air%a!s plane on his return trip fro& Madrid to Manila. *" ))) ))) )))

". That li,e%ise, as a result of defendant.s failure to furnish First Class acco&&odations aforesaid, plaintiff suffered inconveniences, e&barrass&ents, and hu&iliations, thereb! causin' plaintiff &ental an'uish, serious an)iet!, %ounded feelin's, social hu&iliation, and the li,e in>ur!, resultin' in &oral da&a'es in the a&ount of P*$,$$$.$$. ** ))) ))) )))

The fore'oin', in our opinion, substantiall! aver2 %irst, That there %as a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passa'e coverin', a&on'st others, the Ban',o,-Teheran le'( &econd, That said contract %as breached %hen petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at Ban',o,( and $hird, that there %as bad faith %hen petitioner.s e&plo!ee co&pelled Carrascoso to leave his first class acco&&odation berth "after he was already, seated" and to ta,e a seat in the tourist class, b! reason of %hich he suffered inconvenience, e&barrass&ents and hu&iliations, thereb! causin' hi& &ental an'uish, serious an)iet!, %ounded feelin's and social hu&iliation, resultin' in &oral da&a'es. It is true that there is no specific &ention of the ter& 'ad faith in the co&plaint. But, the inference of bad faith is there, it &a! be dra%n fro& the facts and circu&stances set forth therein. *3 The contract %as averred to establish the relation bet%een the parties. But the stress of the action is put on %ron'ful e)pulsion. Duite apart fro& the fore'oin' is that :a= ri'ht the start of the trial, respondent.s counsel placed petitioner on 'uard on %hat Carrascoso intended to prove2 That %hile sittin' in the plane in Ban',o,, Carrascoso %as ousted b! petitioner.s &ana'er %ho 'ave his seat to a %hite &an( *# and :b= evidence of bad faith in the fulfill&ent of the contract %as presented %ithout ob>ection on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore, unnecessar! to inAuire as to %hether or not there is sufficient aver&ent in the co&plaint to >ustif! an a%ard for &oral da&a'es. Ceficienc! in the co&plaint, if an!, %as cured b! the evidence. An a&end&ent thereof to confor& to the evidence is not even reAuired. *< /n the Auestion of bad faith, the Court of Appeals declared2 That the plaintiff %as forced out of his seat in the first class co&part&ent of the plane belon'in' to the defendant Air France %hile at Ban',o,, and %as transferred to the tourist class not onl! %ithout his consent but a'ainst his %ill, has been sufficientl! established b! plaintiff in his testi&on! before the court, corroborated b! the correspondin' entr! &ade b! the purser of the plane in his noteboo, %hich notation reads as follo%s2 1First-class passen'er %as forced to 'o to the tourist class a'ainst his %ill, and that the captain refused to intervene1, and b! the testi&on! of an e!e-%itness, Ernesto 6. Cuento, %ho %as a co-passen'er. The captain of the plane %ho %as as,ed b! the &ana'er of defendant co&pan! at Ban',o, to intervene even refused to do so. It is note%orth! that no one on behalf of defendant ever contradicted or denied this evidence for the plaintiff. It could have been eas! for defendant to

present its &ana'er at Ban',o, to testif! at the trial of the case, or !et to secure his disposition( but defendant did neither. *? The Court of appeals further stated I Neither is there evidence as to %hether or not a prior reservation %as &ade b! the %hite &an. ;ence, if the e&plo!ees of the defendant at Ban',o, sold a first-class tic,et to hi& %hen all the seats had alread! been ta,en, surel! the plaintiff should not have been pic,ed out as the one to suffer the conseAuences and to be sub>ected to the hu&iliation and indi'nit! of bein' e>ected fro& his seat in the presence of others. Instead of e)plainin' to the %hite &an the i&providence co&&itted b! defendant.s e&plo!ees, the &ana'er adopted the &ore drastic step of oustin' the plaintiff %ho %as then safel! ensconsced in his ri'htful seat. 7e are stren'thened in our belief that this probabl! %as %hat happened there, b! the testi&on! of defendant.s %itness Rafael Altona'a %ho, %hen as,ed to e)plain the &eanin' of the letters 1/.E.1 appearin' on the tic,ets of plaintiff, said 1that the space is confir&ed for first class. 4i,e%ise, Genaida Faustino, another %itness for defendant, %ho %as the chief of the Reservation /ffice of defendant, testified as follo%s2 1D ;o% does the person in the tic,et-issuin' office ,no% %hat reservation the passen'er has arran'ed %ith !ouB A The! call us up b! phone and as, for the confir&ation.1 :t.s.n., p. "3?, June +, +#+= In this connection, %e Auote %ith approval %hat the trial Jud'e has said on this point2 7h! did the, usin' the %ords of %itness Ernesto 6. Cuento, 1%hite &an1 have a 1better ri'ht1 to the seat occupied b! Mr. CarrascosoB The record is silent. The defendant airline did not prove 1an! better1, na!, an! ri'ht on the part of the 1%hite &an1 to the 1First class1 seat that the plaintiff %as occup!in' and for %hich he paid and %as issued a correspondin' 1first class1 tic,et. If there %as a >ustified reason for the action of the defendant.s Mana'er in Ban',o,, the defendant could have easil! proven it b! havin' ta,en the testi&on! of the said Mana'er b! deposition, but defendant did not do so( the presu&ption is that evidence %illfull! suppressed %ould be adverse if produced 8@ec. <+, par :e=, Rules of Court9( and, under the circu&stances, the Court is constrained to find, as it does find, that the Mana'er of the defendant airline in Ban',o, not &erel! as,ed but threatened the plaintiff to thro% hi& out of the plane if he did not 'ive up his 1first class1 seat because the said Mana'er %anted to acco&&odate, usin' the %ords of the %itness Ernesto 6. Cuento, the 1%hite &an1.*0 It is reall! correct to sa! that the Court of Appeals in the Auoted portion first transcribed did not use the ter& 1bad faith1. But can it be doubted that the recital of facts therein points to bad faithB The &ana'er not onl! prevented Carrascoso fro& en>o!in' his ri'ht to a first class seat( %orse, he i&posed his arbitrar! %ill( he forcibl! e>ected hi& fro& his seat, &ade hi& suffer the hu&iliation of havin' to 'o to the tourist class co&part&ent - >ust to 'ive %a! to another passen'er %hose ri'ht thereto has not been established. Certainl!, this is bad faith. Knless, of course, bad faith has assu&ed a &eanin' different fro& %hat is understood in la%. For, 1bad faith1 conte&plates a 1state of &ind affir&ativel! operatin' %ith furtive desi'n or %ith so&e &otive of self-interest or %ill or for ulterior purpose.1 *+

And if the fore'oin' %ere not !et sufficient, there is the e)press findin' of 'ad faith in the >ud'&ent of the Court of First Instance, thus2 The evidence sho%s that the defendant violated its contract of transportation %ith plaintiff in bad faith, %ith the a''ravatin' circu&stances that defendant.s Mana'er in Ban',o, %ent to the e)tent of threatenin' the plaintiff in the presence of &an! passen'ers to have hi& thro%n out of the airplane to 'ive the 1first class1 seat that he %as occup!in' to, a'ain usin' the %ords of the %itness Ernesto 6. Cuento, a 1%hite &an1 %ho& he :defendant.s Mana'er= %ished to acco&&odate, and the defendant has not proven that this 1%hite &an1 had an! 1better ri'ht1 to occup! the 1first class1 seat that the plaintiff %as occup!in', dul! paid for, and for %hich the correspondin' 1first class1 tic,et %as issued b! the defendant to hi&. 3$ #. The responsibilit! of an e&plo!er for the tortious act of its e&plo!ees need not be essa!ed. It is %ell settled in la%. 3 For the %illful &alevolent act of petitioner.s &ana'er, petitioner, his e&plo!er, &ust ans%er. Article " of the Civil Code sa!s2 ART. " . An! person %ho %illfull! causes loss or in>ur! to another in a &anner that is contrar! to &orals, 'ood custo&s or public polic! shall co&pensate the latter for the da&a'e. In parallel circu&stances, %e applied the fore'oin' le'al precept( and, %e held that upon the provisions of Article "" + : $=, Civil Code, &oral da&a'es are recoverable. 3" <. A contract to transport passen'ers is Auite different in ,ind and de'ree fro& an! other contractual relation. 3* And this, because of the relation %hich an air-carrier sustains %ith the public. Its business is &ainl! %ith the travellin' public. It invites people to avail of the co&forts and advanta'es it offers. The contract of air carria'e, therefore, 'enerates a relation attended %ith a public dut!. Ne'lect or &alfeasance of the carrier.s e&plo!ees, naturall!, could 'ive 'round for an action for da&a'es. Passen'ers do not contract &erel! for transportation. The! have a ri'ht to be treated b! the carrier.s e&plo!ees %ith ,indness, respect, courtes! and due consideration. The! are entitled to be protected a'ainst personal &isconduct, in>urious lan'ua'e, indi'nities and abuses fro& such e&plo!ees. @o it is, that an! rule or discourteous conduct on the part of e&plo!ees to%ards a passen'er 'ives the latter an action for da&a'es a'ainst the carrier. 33 Thus, 17here a stea&ship co&pan! 3# had accepted a passen'er.s chec,, it %as a breach of contract and a tort, 'ivin' a ri'ht of action for its a'ent in the presence of third persons to falsel! notif! her that the chec, %as %orthless and de&and pa!&ent under threat of e>ection, thou'h the lan'ua'e used %as not insultin' and she %as not e>ected.1 3< And this, because, althou'h the relation of passen'er and carrier is 1contractual both in ori'in and nature1 nevertheless 1the act that brea,s the contract &a! be also a tort1. 3? And in another case, 17here a passen'er on a railroad train, %hen the conductor ca&e to collect his fare tendered hi& the cash fare to a point %here the train %as scheduled not to stop, and told hi& that as soon as the train reached such point he %ould pa! the cash fare fro& that point to destination, there %as nothin' in the conduct of the passen'er %hich >ustified the conductor in usin' insultin' lan'ua'e to hi&, as b! callin' hi& a lunatic,1 30 and the @upre&e Court of @outh Carolina there held the carrier liable for the &ental sufferin' of said passen'er.(awph)l.n*t

Petitioner.s contract %ith Carrascoso is one attended %ith public dut!. The stress of Carrascoso.s action as %e have said, is placed upon his %ron'ful e)pulsion. This is a violation of public dut! b! the petitioner air carrier I a case of "uasi+delict. Ca&a'es are proper. ?. Petitioner dra%s our attention to respondent Carrascoso.s testi&on!, thus I D Fou &entioned about an attendant. 7ho is that attendant and purserB A 7hen %e left alread! I that %as alread! in the trip I I could not help it. @o one of the fli'ht attendants approached &e and reAuested fro& &e &! tic,et and I said, 7hat forB and she said, 17e %ill note that !ou transferred to the tourist class1. I said, 1Nothin' of that ,ind. That is tanta&ount to acceptin' &! transfer.1 And I also said, 1Fou are not 'oin' to note an!thin' there because I a& protestin' to this transfer1. D 7as she able to note itB A No, because I did not 'ive &! tic,et. D About that purserB A 7ell, the seats there are so close that !ou feel unco&fortable and !ou don.t have enou'h le' roo&, I stood up and I %ent to the pantr! that %as ne)t to &e and the purser %as there. ;e told &e, 1I have recorded the incident in &! noteboo,.1 ;e read it and translated it to &e I because it %as recorded in French I 1First class passen'er %as forced to 'o to the tourist class a'ainst his %ill, and that the captain refused to intervene.1 Mr. LA4TE I I &ove to stri,e out the last part of the testi&on! of the %itness because the best evidence %ould be the notes. Four ;onor. C/KRT I I %ill allo% that as part of his testi&on!.
3+

Petitioner char'es that the findin' of the Court of Appeals that the purser &ade an entr! in his noteboo, readin' 1First class passen'er %as forced to 'o to the tourist class a'ainst his %ill, and that the captain refused to intervene1 is predicated upon evidence 8Carrascoso.s testi&on! above9 %hich is inco&petent. 7e do not thin, so. The sub>ect of inAuir! is not the entr!, but the ouster incident. Testi&on! on the entr! does not co&e %ithin the proscription of the best evidence rule. @uch testi&on! is ad&issible. 3+a Besides, fro& a readin' of the transcript >ust Auoted, %hen the dialo'ue happened, the i&pact of the startlin' occurrence %as still fresh and continued to be felt. The e)cite&ent had not as !et died do%n. @tate&ents then, in this environ&ent, are ad&issible as part of the res gestae. #$ For, the! 'ro% 1out of the nervous e)cite&ent and &ental and ph!sical condition of the declarant1. # The utterance of the purser re'ardin' his entr! in the noteboo, %as spontaneous, and related to the circu&stances of the ouster incident. Its trust%orthiness has been 'uaranteed. #" It thus escapes the operation of the hearsa! rule. It for&s part of the res gestae.

At all events, the entr! %as &ade outside the Philippines. And, b! an e&plo!ee of petitioner. It %ould have been an eas! &atter for petitioner to have contradicted Carrascoso.s testi&on!. If it %ere reall! true that no such entr! %as &ade, the deposition of the purser could have cleared up the &atter. 7e, therefore, hold that the transcribed testi&on! of Carrascoso is ad&issible in evidence. 0. E)e&plar! da&a'es are %ell a%arded. The Civil Code 'ives the court a&ple po%er to 'rant e)e&plar! da&a'es I in contracts and Auasi- contracts. The onl! condition is that defendant should have 1acted in a %anton, fraudulent, rec,less, oppressive, or &alevolent &anner.1 #* The &anner of e>ect&ent of respondent Carrascoso fro& his first class seat fits into this le'al precept. And this, in addition to &oral da&a'es.#3 +. The ri'ht to attorne!.s fees is full! established. The 'rant of e)e&plar! da&a'es >ustifies a si&ilar >ud'&ent for attorne!s. fees. The least that can be said is that the courts belo% felt that it is but >ust and eAuitable that attorne!s. fees be 'iven. ## 7e do not intend to brea, faith %ith the tradition that discretion %ell e)ercised I as it %as here I should not be disturbed. $. Duestioned as e)cessive are the a&ounts decreed b! both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, thus2 P"#,$$$.$$ as &oral da&a'es( P $,$$$.$$, b! %a! of e)e&plar! da&a'es, and P*,$$$.$$ as attorne!s. fees. The tas, of fi)in' these a&ounts is pri&aril! %ith the trial court. #< The Court of Appeals did not interfere %ith the sa&e. The dictates of 'ood sense su''est that %e 'ive our i&pri&atur thereto. Because, the facts and circu&stances point to the reasonableness thereof. #? /n balance, %e sa! that the >ud'&ent of the Court of Appeals does not suffer fro& reversible error. 7e accordin'l! vote to affir& the sa&e. Costs a'ainst petitioner. @o ordered. Concepcion, C.,., Reyes, ,.B.L., Barrera, -izon, Regala, !a.alintal, Zaldi ar and Castro, ,,., concur. Bengzon, ,.P., ,., too. no part. !oot#ote) Civil Case No. *00 $, 1Rafael Carrascoso, plaintiff, vs. Air France, defendant,1 R.A., pp. ?+0$.
"

C.A.-6.R. No. "<#""-R, 1Rafael Carrascoso, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Air France, defendantappellant.1
*

Appendi) A, petitioner.s brief, pp 3<- 3?. @ee also R.A., pp. <<-<?. Petitioner.s brief, p. 3". @ection ", Article LIII, Constitution.

<

@ection , Rule *<, Rules of Court. @ee also @ection ", Rule "$, in reference to >ud'&ents in cri&inal cases.
?

@ec. 3. Rule # ( @ec. **:"=, Judiciar! Act of +30, as a&ended.

Ed%ards vs. McCo!, "" Phil. #+0, <$ ( Fan'co vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al., "+ Phil. 0*, + .
+

Bra'a vs. Millora, * Phil. 3#0, 3<#.

$

/d. Arin'o vs. Arena 3 Phil. "<*, "<<( e&phasis supplied.

"

Re!es vs. People. ? Phil. #+0, <$$.

People vs. Mani'Aue *# /.6., No. +3, pp. <0", <0*, citin' @ection ** of the Code of Civil Procedure and @ection ", Art. LIII, Constitution, supra.
3

Bad'er et al. vs. Bo!d, <# @.7. :"d=, pp. <$ , < $. @ection #, :&= and :o=, Rule * , Rules of Court. In re 6ood.s Estate, "<< P. :"d=, pp. ? +, ?"+. Bad'er et al. vs. Bo!d, supra. 6oduco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 4- ?<3?, Februar! "0, +<3. @ection ", Rule 3#, Rules of Court, for&erl! @ection ", Rule 3< of the Rules of Court.

<

"$

Medel, et al. vs. Calasan5, et al. 4- 30*#, Au'ust * , +<$( AstraAuillo, et al. vs. Javier, et al., 4-"$$*3, Januar! *$, +<#.
"

Petitioner.s brief in the Court of Appeals, pp. 0"-+0. Cecision of the Court of Appeals, Appendi) A, petitioner.s brief, pp. 30- 3+. R.A., pp. <?, ?*. # B C.J.@., p. "+#( * A&. Jur. p. <?0. * A&. Jur., pp. <??-<?0. @ee 6arcia Lalde5 vs. @eterana Tuason, 3$ Phil, +3*, +# . Carrascoso.s tic,et, accordin' to petitioner :brief, pp. ?-0=, sho%s2 @e' &ent Carrier or le' . PA4 Manil a to ;on' Cate of Ceparture March *$

""

"*

"3

"#

"<

"?

Fli'ht No. *$$A

,on' ". ;on' ,on' LN:Air <+* to Lietna&= @ai' on *. @ai' on to AF:Air France= "3# Beiru t
"0

March *

March *

Petitioner.s brief, p. #$( see also id., pp. *? and 3<. /d., p. $*. /'id., p. $".

"+

*$

Article """$, Civil Code reads2 17illful in>ur! to propert! &a! be a le'al 'round for a%ardin' &oral da&a'es if the court should find that, under the circu&stances, such da&a'es are >ustl! due. The sa&e rule applies to breaches of contract %here the defendant acted fraudulentl! or in bad faith.1
*"

R.A., p. "-3( e&phasis supplied. R.A., P. #( second cause of action.

**

*3

Copeland vs. Cunehoo et al., *0 @.E., "<?, "?$. @ee also "# C.J.@., pp. ?#0-?#+( # A&. Jur., pp. ?<<-?<?.
*#

@tate&ent of Attorne! Lille'as for respondent Carrascoso in open court. Respondent.s brief, p. **.
*<

@ection #, Rule $, Rules of Court, in part reads2 1@EC. #. A#end#ent to confor# to or authorize presentation of e idence.I7hen issues not raised b! the pleadin's are tried b! e)press or i&plied consent of the parties, the! shall be treated in all respects, as if the! had been raised in the pleadin's. @uch a&end&ent of the pleadin's as &a! be necessar! to cause the& to confor& to the evidence and to raise these issues &a! be &ade upon &otion of an! part! at an! ti&e, even after >ud'&ent( but failure so to a&end does not affect the result of the trial of these issues ...1( Co Tia&co vs. Cia5, etc., et al., ?# Phil. <?", <?+( J.M. Tuason M Co., Inc., etc. vs. Bolanos, +# Phil. $<, $.
*?

Cecision, Court of Appeals, Appendi) A of petitioner.s brief, pp. 3?- 30. Cecision of the Court of Appeals, Appendi) A of petitioner.s brief, pp. 3?- # .

*0

*+

7ords M Phrases, Per&. Ed., Lol. #, p. *, citin' 7arfield Natural 6as Co. vs. Allen, #+ @.7. :"d= #*3, #*0.
3$

R.A., p.?3( e&phasis supplied.

Article " 0$, Civil Code. Philippine Refinin' Co. vs. 6arcia, et al., 4-" 0? and 4-" +<", @epte&ber "?, +<<. @ee @ection 3, Chapter *, Title LIII, Civil Code. 3 R.C.4., pp. ?3?#.

3"

3*

33

3#

An air carrier is a co&&on carrier( and air transportation is si&ilar or analo'ous to land and %ater transportation. Mendo5a vs. Philippine Air 4ines, Inc., +$ Phil. 0*<, 03 -03".
3<

Austro-A&erican @.@. Co. vs. Tho&as, "30 F. "* . /d., p. "**. 4ip&an vs. Atlantic Coast 4ine R. Co., +* @.E. ? 3, ? <. Petitioner.s brief, pp, $3- $#. L Moran, Co&&ents on the Rules of Court, +<* ed., p. ?<.

3?

30

3+

3+a

#$

@ection *<, Rule *$, Rules of Court. IL Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, +<* ed., p. *"3. /'id. Article ""*", Civil Code. Article """+, Civil Code. Article ""$0, : = and : =, Civil Code.

#"

#*

#3

##

#<

Coleon'co vs. Claparols, 4- 0< <, March * , +<3( Corpus vs. Cuaderno, et al., 4-"*?" , March * , +<#.
#?

Cf. Futu, vs. Manila Electric Co&pan!, 4- *$ <, Ma! * , +< ( 4ope5 et al. vs. Pan A&erican 7orld Air%a!s, 4-""3 #, March *$, +<<.