AIR FRANCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Digest)

AIR FRANCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 76093/ March 21, 1989 FACTS:

Atty. Narciso Morales, a lawyer, thru his representative purchased an airline ticket from Aspac Management Management Corporation, Corporation, petitioner's petitioner's General Sales Agent in Makati. Makati. The itinerary itinerary covere covered d by the ticket ticket includ included ed severa severall cities cities,, with with certai certain n segment segments s thereo thereoff restri restricte cted d by markings of "non endorsable' and 'valid on Air France only. While in New York, U.S.A., Atty. Morales suffered an ear infection which necessitated medical treatment. He obtained three medical certificate. 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 s ome of the cities in the itinerary. Atty. 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). The Air France Manila replied in negative with the re quest of Atty. Atty. Morales to shorten shorten his trip. After After reiterating reiterating his need to flying home on a shorter shorter route due to his ear  infection, and presentation of supporting medical certificates, again, the airline office made the necessary necessary request to Manila a Hamburg, Hamburg, Paris, Geneva, Rome, Paris, Paris, Hongkong Hongkong and Manila route. Still, the request was denied. Atty. Morales, therefore, had to buy an entirely new set of  tickets, tickets, paying 1,914 German German marks for the homeward route. Upon arrival in Manila, Manila, Atty. Atty. Morales filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages. The CFI found Air  France was in evident bad faith for violation of the contract of carriage, aggravated by the threatening attitude of its employees in Hamburg. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI's decision with modifications on the the award of damages. Questioning the factual factual findings of  the CA Air France filed a petition for review.. review.. ISSUE:

Whether or not Air France is guilty of Breach of Contract of Carriage.

HELD:

No, Air France is not guilty of Breach of Contract of Carriage. The respondent court's ruling that there was breach of contract of carriage is premised on petitioner's refusal to reroute Atty. Atty. Morales and, in effect, requiring him to purchase a new set of tickets. 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 required entries on the ticket, such restrictions restrictions may be written, written, stamped stamped or reprinted in plain plain language language in the Endorsemen Endorsement/Re t/Restri striction ctions" s" box of the applicabl applicable e flight flight coupon(s); coupon(s); or attached  attached  thereto by use of an appropriate notice." Voluntary changes to tickets, 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. Considering the original restrictions on the ticket, it was not unreasonable for Air France to deny deny the request. request. It is essent essential ial before before an award award of damage damages s that that the claimant claimant must satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts. Atty. Morales failed to substantiate his claim due to failure to present a medical certificate that he indeed had undergone medical examination up on arrival in Manila. Furthermore, Air France employees in Hamburg informed Atty. Morales that his tickets were partly stamped "non-endorsable" and "valid on Air France only." The mere refusal to accede to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absenc absence e of bad faith. faith. Atty. Morale Morales s has failed failed to show show wanton wanton,, malevol malevolent ent or reckles reckless s misconduct imputable to petitioner in its refusal to re-route. Omissions by ordinary passengers may be condoned but more is expected of members of the bar who cannot feign ignorance of  such such limita limitatio tions ns and restri restricti ctions. ons. An award award of moral moral and exempl exemplary ary damage damages s cannot cannot be sustained under the circumstances, but petitioner has to refund the unused coupons in the Air  France ticket to the private respondent.