CASE

# 5 OK
#6
Facts
Rafael Carrascoso was part of a group of pilgrims leaving for Lourdes. Air France,
through PAL, issued to Carrascoso a first class round trip ticket. From Manila to
Bangkok, he traveled in first class but at Bangkok, the manager of Air France forced him
to vacate his seat, because a "white man" had a "better right" to it. He refused and even
had a heated discussion with the manager but after being pacified by fellow
passengers, he reluctantly gave up the seat.
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). CFI and CA disposed of this
contention.

Issue
WON Carrascoso was entitled to the first class seat he claims. YES

Held
On CA's decision
Air France charges that CA failed to make complete findings of fact on all issues
presented. SC says that so long as CA's decision contains the facts necessary to
warrant its conclusions, there is nothing wrong in withholding any specific finding of
facts with respect to the evidence for the defense.


On the seat issue
If a first-class ticket holder is not entitled to a corresponding seat, what security can a
passenger have? It's very easy to strike out the stipulations in the ticket and say that
there was a contrary verbal agreement. There was no explanation as to why he was
allowed to take a first class seat before coming to Bangkok if indeed he had no seat or if
someone had a better right to it.


On contract to transport, QD, etc.
This is different in kind and degree from any other contractual obligation because of the
relation which an air carrier sustains with the public. Passengers do not contract merely
for transportation as they have a right to be treated by the employees with kindness,
respect, courtesy, consideration. What happened was a violation of public duty by Air
France--a case of QD, so damages are proper. A case was cited wherein it was said
that although the relation of passenger and carrier is contractual in origin and nature,
the act that breaks the K may be also a tort.

On the issue of award of damages
Air France assails CA's award of moral damages, claiming that since Carrascoso's
action is based on breach of contract, there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith in
order to avail of said award. While there was no specific mention of "bad faith," it may
be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth. Deficiency in the complaint, if any,
was cured by evidence.


Allegations in the complaint on this issue:
1. There was a K to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering the
Bangkok-Teheran leg
2. This K was breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transpo
at Bangkok
3. There was bad faith when the manager compelled Carrascoso to leave his
seat after he was already seated and to transfer to the tourist class, thereby
making him suffer inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation, etc.
bad faith - state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive
of self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes

See NCC 21. Upon the provisions of NCC 2219 (10), moral damages are
recoverable. Exemplary damages are well awarded also, since NCC gives the court
power to grant such in K and QK, with the condition that the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Posted


# 7

La Mallorca v. CA, Mariano Beltran, et al.
G.R. No. L-20761 July 27, 1966
Barrera, J.
FACTS:

Spouses Beltran, together with thei r
minor daughters, namely, Mi lagros, 13 years old,Raquel, about 4 years old,
and Fe, over 2 years old, boarded the Pambusco bus,
ownedand oper at ed by La Mal l or ca, at San Fer nando, Pampanga, bou
nd f or Anao, Mexi co, Pampanga. The conductor of the bus, who is a half-brother of
Mariano, issued three tickets covering the full fares of the plaintiff and their eldest child,
Milagros. No fare was charged on Raquel and Fe, since both were below the height at
which fare is charged in accordance with the appellant's rules and regulations.

The bus reached Anao. Mariano Beltran, then carrying some of their
baggages, led his famil y members to a shaded spot on the left pedestrian
side of the road about 4 or 5meters away from the vehicle. Afterwards, he returned
to the bus to get his other bayong, which he had left behind, but in so doing, his
daughter Raquel followed him, unnoticed by her father. While Mariano was on the
running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him his bayong whi ch he
left under one of its seats near the door, the bus, whose motor was not shut
off while unloading, suddenly started moving forward, evidentl y to resume its
trip, notwithstanding the fact that the conductor has not given the driver the customary
si gnal to start, since said conductor was stil l attending to the baggage left
behind by Mariano.

Raquel was run over by the bus. Her skull was crushed as a result.

Petitioners contention: La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of contract
in the case, for the reason that when the child met her death, she was no longer a
passenger of the bus invol ved in the inci dent and, therefore, the contract of
carriage had al ready terminated.

Respondents contention: Mariano had to return to the vehicle (to get one of
his bags
orb a y o n g t h a t wa s l e f t u n d e r o n e o f t h e s e a t s o f t h e b u s . T h u s
, a s f a r a s Ma r i a n o i s concerned, when he returned to the bus for his
bayong, the relation of passenger and carrier between him and the petitioner
remained subsisting. Hence, La Mallorca is liable for culpa contractual.

ISSUE:
WON as to the child Raquel, who was al ready led by the father to a place
about 5meters away from the bus, the liability of the carrier for her safety
under the contract of carriage also persisted
HELD:
Yes. The r el at i on of car r i er and passenger does not cease at t he
moment t he passenger alights from the carrier's vehicle at a place selected by the
carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a
reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier's premises. And, what
is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all
the circumstances.

#8
#9
PAY v VDA DE PALANCA
FACTS:
George Pay, petitioner, is the creditor of the late JustoPalanca who died in 1963. The
latter and his wife,respondent Rosa Gonzalez vda. de Palanca, issued apromissory
note in 1952, in the amount of P26,900 withinterest of 12% per annum.The PN
contained the following:For value received from time to time since 1947, we[jointly and
severally promise to] pay to Mr. [George Pay]at his office at the China Banking
Corporation the sum of[Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos] (P26,900.00),with
interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum uponreceipt by either of the undersigned
of cash paymentfrom the Estate of the late Don Carlos Palanca or
upondemand

ISSUE:
W/N a creditor is barred by prescription in his attemptto collect on a promissory note
executed more thanfifteen years earlier with the debtor sued promising topay either
upon receipt by him of his share from acertain estate or upon demand

HELD:
YES, the creditor is barred from collecting. The SC rulingis based on Article 1179 of the
Civil Code, whichprovides: "Every obligation, whose performance does notdepend upon
a future or uncertain event, or upon a pastevent unknown to the parties, is demandable
at once."
The obligation being due and demandable (payable ondemand), it would appear that
the filing of the suit after fifteen years was much too late. For again, according tothe
Civil Code, which is based on Section 43 of Act No.190, the prescriptive period for a
written contract is thatof ten years.*N.B. This case was decided in 1974, but for some
reasonthe SC cited the Civil Code provision on CONTRACTSwhen in fact the NIL was
already effective (as of June 2,1911). Nevertheless, the ruling is consistent with Sec.
7(a) of the NIL, which states, An instrument is payable ondemand, where it is
expressed to be payable on demand,or at sight, or on presentation...