G.R. No.

76093 March 21, 1989 AIR FRANCE vs CA

AIR FRANCE, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NARCISO O. MORALES, respondents.

Paris/Stockholm Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF

ONLY
Stockholm/Copenhagen None
Copenhagen/London None

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for petitioner.

London/Amsterdam None
Morales & Joyas Law Office for private respondent.
Amsterdam/Hamburg None
Humburg/Frankfurt None
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision ** of the Court of
Appeals, dated 1986, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875, entitled "Narciso Morales vs.
Air France," dismissing herein petitioner's appeal from the adverse ruling of the
trial court (Branch 33, CFI of Rizal, Kalookan City) *** and the latter's denial of
its motion for reconsideration. The respondent Court of Appeals likewise denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its decision in a resolution dated 25
September 1986.
In reviewing the records, we find:

Frankfurt/Paris Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF

ONLY
Paris/Geneva Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF
ONLY
Geneva/Madrid None
Madrid/Nice Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF
ONLY

Sometime in October 1977, private respondent Narciso Morales thru his

representative, Ms. Janet Tolentino, purchased an airline ticket from Aspac
Management Corporation, petitioner's General Sales Agent in Makati, for P
9,426.00 plus P 1,413.90 travel tax, of which P 413.90 were later refunded to
Ms. Tolentino.

Nice/Rome Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF

ONLY

The itinerary covered by the ticket included several cities, with certain segments
thereof restricted by markings of "non endorsable' and 'valid on AF (meaning Air
France) only', as herein specified:

Athens/Tel Aviv None

CARRIER EXPRESS
ITINERARY SPECIFIED RESTRICTIONS
New York/Paris Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF
ONLY

Rome/Athens None

Tel Avive/Bangkok Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON

AF ONLY
Bangkok/Manila Air France NONENDORSABLE VALID ON AF
ONLY 1
While in New York, U.S.A. on 3 November 1977, private respondent Morales
obtained three (3) medical certificates (Exhibits G, G-1, G-2) attesting to ear an
infection which necessitated medical treatment. From New York, he flew to

Paris, Stockholm and then Copenhagen where he made representations with

petitioner's office to shorten his trip by deleting some of the cities in the itinerary.
Respondent Morales was informed that, as a matter of procedure, confirmation
of petitioner's office in Manila (as ticketing office) must be secured before
shortening of the route (already paid for). Air France in Amsterdam telexed AF
Manila requesting for rerouting of the passenger to Amsterdam, Hamburg,
Geneva, Rome, Hongkong, Manila. 2
As there was no immediate response to the telex, respondent proceeded to
Hamburg where he was informed of AF Manila's negative reply. After reiterating
his need to flying home on a shorter route due to his ear infection, and
presentation of supporting medical certificates, again, the airline office made the
necessary request to Manila on 23 November 1977 for a Hamburg, Paris,
Geneva, Rome, Paris, Hongkong and Manila route. Still, the request was
denied. Despite respondent as protest and offer to pay any fare difference,
petitioner did not relent in its position. Respondent, therefore, had to buy an
entirely new set of tickets, paying 1,914 German marks for the homeward route,
namely:
Itinerary Carrier Date Reservation
Hamburg/Frankfurt LH 26 Nov. OK (Lufthansa)
Frankfurt/Geneva SR 26 Nov. OK (Swissair)

of several civic and business organizations, an award of moral and exemplary

damages, in addition to the actual damages incurred, was deemed proper under
the circumstances. The dispositive part of the CFI decision states:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby renders judgment for the
plaintiff and orders the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum
of 1,914 German Marks, in its equivalent in Philippine Peso, as
actual damages, the sum of P 1,000,000.00 as moral damages,
and the further sum of P 800,000.00 as exemplary damages,
with legal interest thereon from date of the filing of the complaint
until fully paid, plus the sum equal to 20% thereof as attorney's
fees, with costs against the plaintiff. 4
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the award of damages was modified as
follows:
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby
modified so that it will read as follows: Judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant ordering
ther defendant to pay to said plaintiff the following.
(1) 1,914 German Marks in its equivalent in Philippine peso at
prevailing rate of exchange as actual damages, with legal
interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until
fully paid;

Geneva/Rome AZ 29 Nov. OK (Alitalia)

(2) P 500,000.00, as moral damages;
Rome/Hongkong BA 02 Dec. OK (British Airways)
(3) P 150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
Hongkong/Manila PR Open Open (Philippine Airlines) 3
Upon arrival in Manila, respondent sent a letter-complaint to Air France dated 20
December 1977 thru Aspac Management Corporation. Respondent Morales
was advised to surrender the unused flight coupons for a refund of its value, but
he kept the same and, instead, filed a complaint for breach of contract of
carriage and damages.
CFI Judge Marcelino Sayo found Air France in evident bad faith for violation of
the contract of carriage, aggravated by the threatening attitude of its employees
in Hamburg. Considering the social and economic standing of respondent, who
is chairman of the board of directors of a multi-million corporation and a member

(4) 5% of the amount of actual, moral and exemplary damages

which are recoverable, as attorney's fees. 5
Questioning the factual findings of the respondent court, petitioner comes to this
court for review citing three (3) errors:
1. The conclusion that there is a breach of contract is premised
on a misapprehension of facts.
2. Failure to apply the doctrine of avoidable consequence in the
present case.

3. Award of exorbitant damages and attorney's fees.

After considering respondent's comment, the Court resolved to give due courses
to the petition, and required the parties to file their respective memoranda.
Complying with the resolution of 26 October 1987, private respondent filed his
reply memorandum on 17 December 1987. This is the last pleading on record.
While this Court is not a trier of facts, yet, when the findings of respondent court
are without citation of specific evidence on which they are based, there is
sufficient reason for the Court to review the appellate court's decision. 6
The respondent court's ruling that there was breach of contract of carriage is
premised on petitioner's refusal to re-route respondent and, in effect, requiring
him to purchase a new set of tickets. Petitioner refutes this conclusion, claiming
that the original ticket was discounted and non-endorsable on certain segments.
Eventually respondent flew on his chosen route with different airlines.
Under the factual milieu, was there really a breach of contract of carriage on the
part of the petitioner, as to justify the award to private respondent of actual,
moral and exemplary damages? We find none.
International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Resolution No. 275 e, 2.,
special note reads: "Where a fare is restricted and such restrictions are not
clearly evident from the required entries on the ticket, such restrictions may be
written, stamped or reprinted in plain language in the Endorsement/Restrictions"
box of the applicable flight coupon(s); or attached thereto by use of an
appropriate notice." 7 Voluntary changes to tickets, 8 while allowable, are also
covered by (IATA) Resolution No. 1013, Art. II, which provides: "1. changes to
the ticket requested by the passenger will be subject to carriers regulations.
Private respondent wanted a rerouting to Hamburg, Geneva, Rome, Hongkong
and Manilas 9 which shortened the original itinerary on the ticket issued by AF
Manila through ASPAC, its general sales agent. Considering the original
restrictions on the ticket, it was not unreasonable for Air France to deny the
request.
Besides, a recurring ear infection was pleaded as reason necessitating urgent
return to Manila. Assuming arguendo a worsening pain or discomfort, private
respondent appears to have still proceeded to four (4) other cities covering a
period of at least six (6) days and leaving open his date of departure from
Hongkong to Manila.10 And, even if he claimed to have undergone medical

examination upon arrival in Manila, no medical certificate was presented. He

failed to even remember his date of arrival in Manila.
With a claim for a large amount of damages, the Court finds it unsual for
respondent, a lawyer, to easily forget vital information to substantiate his plea. It
is also 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.11
In KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. CA, 12 the Court observed.... As noted by the Court of Appeals that condition was printed
in letters so small that one would have to use a magnifying
glass to read the words. Under the circumstances, it would be
unfair and inequitable to charge the respondents with automatic
knowledge or notice of the said condition so as to preclude any
doubt that it was fairly and freely agreed upon by the
respondents when they accepted the passage tickets issued to
them by the KLM. As the airline which issued those tickets with
the knowledge that the respondents would be flown on the
various legs of their journey by different air carriers, the KLM
was chargeable with the duty and responsibility of specifically
informing the respondents of conditions prescribed in their
tickets or in the very least, to ascertain that the respondent read
them before they accepted their passage tickets. A thorough
search of the records, however, inexplicably fails to show that
any effort was exerted by the KLM officials or employees to
discharge in a proper manner this responsibility to the
respondents. Consequently, We hold that the respondents
cannot be bound by the provision in question by which KLM
unilaterally assumed the role of a mere ticket-issuing agent for
other airlines and limited its liability only to untoward
occurrences on its own lines. (Emphasis supplied)
Unlike in the KLM case where the breach of contract was aggravated by the
discourteous and arbitrary conduct of an official of the Aer Lingus which the KLM
had engaged to transport the respondents, here. Air France employees in
Hamburg informed private respondent that his tickets were partly stamped "nonendorsable" and "valid on Air France only."13 Mere refusal to accede to the
passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absence
of bad faith.14 To our mind, respondent has failed to show wanton, malevolent
or reckless misconduct imputable to petitioner in its refusal to re-route.

Air France Manila acted upon the advise of ASPAC in denying private
respondent's request. There was no evident bad faith when it followed the
advise not to authorize rerouting.15 At worst, the situation can be considered a
case of inadvertence on the part of ASPAC in not explaining the non-endorsable
character of the ticket. Of importance, however, is the fact that private
respondent is a lawyer, and the restriction box 16 clearly indicated the nonendorsable character of the ticket.
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. An award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be sustained
under the circumstances, but petitioner has to refund the unused coupons in the
Air France ticket to the private respondent.
WHEREFORE, the judgement appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner is ordered, however, to refund to private respondent the value of the
unused coupons in the passenger's ticket issued to him by the petitioner. No
costs.