Air France vs.

CA and Morales
G. R. no. 76093
March 21, 1989

Padilla, J:

FACTS:

Private respondent Atty. Narciso Morales purchased an airline ticket from

petitioner Air France thru its General Sales Agent, Aspec Management Corporation.
The itinerary covered by the ticket included several cities (more or less 17 destinations)
with certain segments restricted by markings of ‘non-endorsable’ and ‘valid on Air
France only’. While private respondent Morales was in in New York, he obtained three
(3) medical certificates attesting to an ear infection which necessitated medical
treatment.

From New York, Morales flew to Paris, Stockholm and them Copenhagen where
he made a request with petitioner’s office to shorten his trip. Private respondent was
informed that, as a matter of procedure, confirmation from petitioner’s office in Manila
must be secured before shortening of the route already paid for.

As there was no immediate response, private respondent proceeded to Hamburg

(another place in his itinerary) where he received a ‘negative’ reply from Air France
Manila. He then reiterated his request to reroute his trip due to his ear infection but
request was once again denied by petitioner’s office. Thus, private respondent had to
buy an entirely new set of tickets to shorten his route.

Upon arrival at Manila, private respondent sent a letter-complaint to Air France

thru Aspac Management Corporation. He was then advised to surrender the unused
flight tickets for a refund, but Morales kept the same and instead filed a complaint for
breach of contract of carriage.

The CFI rendered a decision in favor of private respondent Morales awarding him
actual, moral and exemplary damages. The CA modified to lower the same damages.
Petitioner Air France now claims that the award of damages exorbitant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is liable for the moral and exemplary damages awarded
to private respondent Morales.

RULING:

No, petitioner Air France is not liable for the moral and exemplary damages
awarded to private respondent Morales.
 The Supreme Court ruled that it is essential before an award of damages that the
claimant must satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the
damages and its causal connection to defendant’s acts. However, in the present case,
Morales claimed to have undergone medical examination upon arrival in Manila but
failed to present a medical certificated and even forgot his date of arrival in Manila. He
was also able to proceed to four (4) other cities from his request to shorten his trip due
to worsening pain or discomfort because of his ear infection.

Moreover, the Court discussed that mere refusal to accede to the passenger’s
wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absence of bad faith. In this
case, Air France employees in Hamburg informed private respondent that his tickets
were partly stamped “non-endorsable” and “valid on Air France only.” The restrictions
box in the ticket clearly indicated the non-endorsable character of the ticket. The Court
also stated that Omissions by ordinary passengers may be condoned but more is
expected of members of the bar who cannot feign ignorance of such limitations and
restrictions.

Thus, the award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be sustained in this
case but petitioner has to refund the unused coupons in the Air France ticket to the
private respondent.