Air France vs CA and Gana

 Air France France vs CA and Gana



 









 

the respondents in this case are late Jose Gana and his family purchased an "open-dated air passage tickets for Manila/Osaka/Tokyo/Manila route from the petitioner Air France. the said tickets were valid until May 8, 1971. In January 1971, Gana sought the assistance of Teresita Manucdoc for the extension of the tickets. Teresita sought help to Lee Ella, manager of Philippine Travel Bureau. Ella sent the tickets to the Office Manager of Air France. The tickets were later returned to Ella who was informed that the extension was not possible unless they will pay fare differentials. in the meantime, the Ganas scheduled their flight 1 day before the expiration of the tickets. on the day of their scheduled departure, Teresita requested travel agent Ella to arrange the revalidation of the tickets. Ella gave same negative answer and warned teresita that although the tickets could be used by the Ganas on May 7, 1971, the tickets would no longer be valid for the rest of their trip. notwithstanding the warnings, the Ganas departed from Manila on May 7, 1971 and on May 17 dishonored their expired tickets which prompted them to buy new tickets. The Ganas filed a complaint against Air France for breach of contract of carriage. the trial court rendered its decision in favor of the the petitioner based on the tariff rules that air tickets is only valid for 1 year.The Ganas argued their lack of knowledge about those rules.

Issue:

WON Air France can be held liable for damages?

Held:

No.

Notice to travel agent of the rejection of request for extension of validity of plane tickets, also notice to the principals.

The GANAS cannot defend by contending lack of knowledge of those rules since the evidence bears out that Teresita, who handled travel arrangements for the GANAS, was duly informed by travel agent Ella of the advice of Reno, the Office Manager of Air France, that the tickets in question could not be extended beyond the period of their validity without paying the fare differentials and additional travel taxes brought about by the increased fare rate and travel taxes.

The ruling relied on by respondent Appellate Court, therefore, in KLM. vs. Court of  Appeals, 65 SCRA 237 (1975), holding that it would be unfair to charge respondents therein with automatic knowledge or notice of conditions in contracts of adhesion, is inapplicable. To all legal intents and purposes, Teresita was the agent of the GANAS and notice to her of the rejection of the request for extension of the validity of the tickets was notice to the GANAS, her principals.