AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No.

L-2143 Se!te"#e$ 2 , 1%&& SANCHE', J.: The Court of First Instance of Manila 1 sentenced petitioner to pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 y !ay of "oral da"a#es$ P10,000.00 as e%e"plary da"a#es$ P&'&.20 representin# the difference in fare et!een first class and tourist class for the portion of the trip (an#)o)*Ro"e, these various a"ounts !ith interest at the le#al rate, fro" the date of the filin# of the co"plaint until paid$ plus P&,000.00 for attorneys+ fees$ and the costs of suit. ,n appeal,2 the Court of -ppeals sli#htly reduced the a"ount of refund on Carrascoso+s plane tic)et fro" P&'&.20 to P&.&.10, and voted to affir" the appealed decision /in all other respects/, !ith costs a#ainst petitioner. The case is no! efore us for revie! on certiorari. The facts declared y the Court of -ppeals as / fully supported y the evidence of record/, are0

Plaintiff, a civil en#ineer, !as a "e" er of a #roup of 1. Filipino pil#ri"s that left Manila for 2ourdes on March &0, 1'5.. ,n March 2., 1'5., the defendant, -ir France, throu#h its authori3ed a#ent, Philippine -ir 2ines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a /first class/ round trip airplane tic)et fro" Manila to Ro"e. Fro" Manila to (an#)o), plaintiff travelled in /first class/, ut at (an#)o), the Mana#er of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the /first class/ seat that he !as occupyin# ecause, in the !ords of the !itness 4rnesto 5. Cuento, there !as a /!hite "an/, !ho, the Mana#er alle#ed, had a / etter ri#ht/ to the seat. 6hen as)ed to vacate his /first class/ seat, the plaintiff, as !as to e e%pected, refused, and told defendant+s Mana#er that his seat !ould e ta)en over his dead ody$ a co""otion ensued, and, accordin# to said 4rnesto 5. Cuento, /"any of the Filipino passen#ers #ot nervous in the tourist class$ !hen they found out that Mr. Carrascoso !as havin# a hot discussion !ith the !hite "an 7"ana#er8, they ca"e all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to #ive his seat to the !hite "an/ 9Transcript, p. 12, :earin# of May 2;, 1'5'<$ and plaintiff reluctantly #ave his /first class/ seat in the plane. &
1. The trust of the relief petitioner no! see)s is that !e revie! /all the findin#s/ 1 of respondent Court of -ppeals. Petitioner char#es that respondent court failed to "a)e co"plete findin#s of fact on all the issues properly laid efore it. 6e are as)ed to consider facts favora le to petitioner, and then, to overturn the appellate court+s decision. Co"in# into focus is the constitutional "andate that /=o decision shall e rendered y any court of record !ithout e%pressin# therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the la! on !hich it is ased/. 5 This is echoed in the statutory de"and that a >ud#"ent deter"inin# the "erits of the case shall state /clearly and distinctly the facts and the la! on !hich it is ased/$ ; and that /4very decision of the Court of -ppeals shall contain co"plete findin#s of fact on all issues properly raised efore it/. ? - decision !ith a solutely nothin# to support it is a nullity. It is open to direct attac). . The la!, ho!ever, solely insists that a decision state the /essential ulti"ate facts/ upon !hich the court+s conclusion is dra!n. ' - court of >ustice is not hide ound to !rite in its decision every it and piece of evidence 10 presented y one party and the other upon the issues raised. =either is it to e urdened !ith the o li#ation /to specify in the sentence the facts/ which a party "considered as proved". 11 This is ut a part of the "ental process fro" !hich the Court dra!s the essential ulti"ate facts. - decision is not to e so clo##ed !ith details such that proli%ity, if not confusion, "ay result. @o lon# as the decision of the Court of -ppeals contains the necessary facts to !arrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to !ithhold therefro" /any specific findin# of facts !ith respect to the evidence for the defense/. (ecause as this Court !ell o served, /There is no la! that so reAuires/. 12 Indeed, /the "ere failure to specify 9in the decision< the contentions of the appellant and the reasons for refusin# to elieve the" is not sufficient to hold the sa"e contrary to the reAuire"ents of the provisions of la! and the Constitution/. It is in this settin# that in Manigque, it !as held that the "ere fact that the findin#s /!ere ased entirely on the evidence for the prosecution !ithout ta)in# into consideration or even "entionin# the appellant+s side in the controversy as sho!n y his o!n testi"ony/, !ould not vitiate the >ud#"ent. 1& If the court did not recite in the decision the testi"ony of each !itness for, or each ite" of evidence presented y, the defeated party, it does not "ean that the court has overloo)ed such testi"ony or such ite" of evidence. 11 -t any rate, the le#al presu"ptions are that official duty has een re#ularly perfor"ed, and that all the "atters !ithin an issue in a case !ere laid efore the court and passed upon y it. 15

Findin#s of fact, !hich the Court of -ppeals is reAuired to "a)e, "ay e defined as /the !ritten state"ent of the ulti"ate facts as found y the court ... and essential to support the decision and >ud#"ent rendered thereon/. 1; They consist of the court+s "conclusions" !ith respect to the determinative facts in issue/. 1? - Auestion of la!, upon the other hand, has een declared as /one !hich does not call for an e%a"ination of the pro ative value of the evidence presented y the parties./ 1. 2. (y statute, /only Auestions of la! "ay e raised/ in an appeal y certiorari fro" a >ud#"ent of the Court of -ppeals. 1' That >ud#"ent is conclusive as to the facts. It is not appropriately the usiness of this Court to alter the facts or to revie! the Auestions of fact. 20 6ith these #uideposts, !e no! face the pro le" of !hether the findin#s of fact of the Court of -ppeals support its >ud#"ent. &. 6as Carrascoso entitled to the first class seat he clai"sB It is conceded in all Auarters that on March 2., 1'5. he paid to and received fro" petitioner a first class tic)et. (ut petitioner asserts that said tic)et did not represent the true and co"plete intent and a#ree"ent of the parties$ that said respondent )ne! that he did not have confir"ed reservations for first class on any specific fli#ht, althou#h he had tourist class protection$ that, accordin#ly, the issuance of a first class tic)et !as no #uarantee that he !ould have a first class ride, ut that such !ould depend upon the availa ility of first class seats. These are "atters !hich petitioner has thorou#hly presented and discussed in its rief efore the Court of -ppeals under its third assi#n"ent of error, !hich reads0 /The trial court erred in findin# that plaintiff had confir"ed reservations for, and a ri#ht to, first class seats on the /definite/ se#"ents of his >ourney, particularly that fro" @ai#on to (eirut/. 21 -nd, the Court of -ppeals disposed of this contention thus0

Cefendant see"s to capitali3e on the ar#u"ent that the issuance of a first*class tic)et !as no #uarantee that the passen#er to !ho" the sa"e had een issued, !ould e acco""odated in the first* class co"part"ent, for as in the case of plaintiff he had yet to "a)e arran#e"ents upon arrival at every station for the necessary first*class reservation. 6e are not i"pressed y such a reasonin#. 6e cannot understand ho! a reputa le fir" li)e defendant airplane co"pany could have the indiscretion to #ive out tic)ets it never "eant to honor at all. It received the correspondin# a"ount in pay"ent of first*class tic)ets and yet it allo!ed the passen#er to e at the "ercy of its e"ployees. It is "ore in )eepin# !ith the ordinary course of usiness that the co"pany should )no! !hether or riot the tic)ets it issues are to e honored or not.22
=ot that the Court of -ppeals is alone. The trial court si"ilarly disposed of petitioner+s contention, thus0 ,n the fact that plaintiff paid for, and !as issued a /First class/ tic)et, there can e no Auestion. -part fro" his testi"ony, see plaintiff+s 4%hi its /-/, /-*1/, /(/, /(*1,/ /(*2/, /C/ and /C*1/, and defendant+s o!n !itness, Rafael -ltona#a, confir"ed plaintiff+s testi"ony and testified as follo!s0

D. In these tic)ets there are "ar)s /,.E./ Fro" !hat you )no!, !hat does this ,E "eanB -. That the space is confir"ed. D. Confir"ed for first classB -. Fes, /first class/. 9Transcript, p. 1;'<
%%% %%% %%%

Cefendant tried to prove y the testi"ony of its !itnesses 2uis Galdaria#a and Rafael -ltona#a that althou#h plaintiff paid for, and !as issued a /first class/ airplane tic)et, the tic)et !as su >ect to confir"ation in :on#)on#. The court cannot #ive credit to the testi"ony of said !itnesses. ,ral evidence cannot prevail over !ritten evidence, and plaintiff+s 4%hi its /-/, /-*l/, /(/, /(*l/, /C/ and /C*1/ elie the testi"ony of said !itnesses, and clearly sho! that the plaintiff !as issued, and paid for, a first class tic)et !ithout any reservation !hatever.

Further"ore, as hereina ove sho!n, defendant+s o!n !itness Rafael -ltona#a testified that the reservation for a /first class/ acco""odation for the plaintiff !as confir"ed. The court cannot elieve that after such confir"ation defendant had a ver al understandin# !ith plaintiff that the /first class/ tic)et issued to hi" y defendant !ould e su >ect to confir"ation in :on#)on#. 2& 6e have heretofore adverted to the fact that e%cept for a sli#ht difference of a fe! pesos in the a"ount refunded on Carrascoso+s tic)et, the decision of the Court of First Instance !as affir"ed y the Court of -ppeals in all other respects. 6e hold the vie! that such a >ud#"ent of affir"ance has "er#ed the >ud#"ent of the lo!er court. 21 I"plicit in that affir"ance is a deter"ination y the Court of -ppeals that the proceedin# in the Court of First Instance !as free fro" pre>udicial error and /all Auestions raised y the assi#n"ents of error and all Auestions that "i#ht have een raised are to e re#arded as finally ad>udicated a#ainst the appellant/. @o also, the >ud#"ent affir"ed /"ust e re#arded as free fro" all error/. 25 6e reached this policy construction ecause nothin# in the decision of the Court of -ppeals on this point !ould su##est that its findin#s of fact are in any !ay at !ar !ith those of the trial court. =or !as said affir"ance y the Court of -ppeals upon a #round or #rounds different fro" those !hich !ere "ade the asis of the conclusions of the trial court. 2; If, as petitioner underscores, a first*class*tic)et holder is not entitled to a first class seat, not!ithstandin# the fact that seat availa ility in specific fli#hts is therein confir"ed, then an air passen#er is placed in the hollo! of the hands of an airline. 6hat security then can a passen#er haveB It !ill al!ays e an easy "atter for an airline aided y its e"ployees, to stri)e out the very stipulations in the tic)et, and say that there !as a ver al a#ree"ent to the contrary. 6hat if the passen#er had a schedule to fulfillB 6e have lon# learned that, as a rule, a !ritten docu"ent spea)s a unifor" lan#ua#e$ that spo)en !ord could e notoriously unrelia le. If only to achieve sta ility in the relations et!een passen#er and air carrier, adherence to the tic)et so issued is desira le. @uch is the case here. The lo!er courts refused to elieve the oral evidence intended to defeat the covenants in the tic)et. The fore#oin# are the considerations !hich point to the conclusion that there are facts upon !hich the Court of -ppeals predicated the findin# that respondent Carrascoso had a first class tic)et and !as entitled to a first class seat at (an#)o), !hich is a stopover in the @ai#on to (eirut le# of the fli#ht. 2? 6e perceive no /!elter of distortions y the Court of -ppeals of petitioner+s state"ent of its position/, as char#ed y petitioner. 2. =or do !e su scri e to petitioner+s accusation that respondent Carrascoso /surreptitiously too) a first class seat to provo)e an issue/. 2' -nd this ecause, as petitioner states, Carrascoso !ent to see the Mana#er at his office in (an#)o) /to confir" "y seat and ecause fro" @ai#on I !as told a#ain to see the Mana#er/. &0 6hy, then, !as he allo!ed to ta)e a first class seat in the plane at (an#)o), if he had no seatB ,r, if another had a etter ri#ht to the seatB 1. Petitioner assails respondent court+s a!ard of "oral da"a#es. Petitioner+s trenchant clai" is that Carrascoso+s action is planted upon reach of contract$ that to authori3e an a!ard for "oral da"a#es there "ust e an aver"ent of fraud or ad faith$&1 and that the decision of the Court of -ppeals fails to "a)e a findin# of ad faith. The pivotal alle#ations in the co"plaint earin# on this issue are0

&. That ... plaintiff entered into a contract of air carria#e !ith the Philippine -ir 2ines for a valua le consideration, the latter actin# as #eneral a#ents for and in ehalf of the defendant, under !hich said contract, plaintiff !as entitled to, as defendant a#reed to furnish plaintiff, First Class passa#e on defendant+s plane durin# the entire duration of plaintiff+s tour of 4urope !ith :on#)on# as startin# point up to and until plaintiff+s return trip to Manila, ... . 1. That, durin# the first t!o le#s of the trip fro" :on#)on# to @ai#on and fro" @ai#on to (an#)o), defendant furnished to the plaintiff First Class acco""odation ut only after protestations, ar#u"ents andHor insistence !ere "ade y the plaintiff !ith defendant+s e"ployees. 5. That finally, defendant failed to provide First Class passa#e, ut instead furnished plaintiff only Tourist Class acco""odations fro" (an#)o) to Teheran andHor Casa lanca, ... the plaintiff has een compelled y defendant+s e"ployees to leave the First Class acco""odation erths at (an#)o) after he was already seated. ;. That conseAuently, the plaintiff, desirin# no repetition of the inconvenience and e" arrass"ents rou#ht y defendant+s reach of contract !as forced to ta)e a Pan -"erican 6orld -ir!ays plane on his return trip fro" Madrid to Manila.&2 %%% %%% %%%

2. That li)e!ise, as a result of defendant+s failure to furnish First Class acco""odations aforesaid, plaintiff suffered inconveniences, e" arrass"ents, and hu"iliations, there y causin# plaintiff "ental an#uish, serious an%iety, !ounded feelin#s, social hu"iliation, and the li)e in>ury, resultin# in "oral da"a#es in the a"ount of P&0,000.00. &&

%%%

%%%

%%%

The fore#oin#, in our opinion, su stantially aver0 First, That there !as a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passa#e coverin#, a"on#st others, the (an#)o)*Teheran le#$ Second, That said contract !as reached !hen petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at (an#)o)$ and Third, that there !as ad faith !hen petitioner+s e"ployee co"pelled Carrascoso to leave his first class acco""odation erth "after he was already, seated" and to ta)e a seat in the tourist class, y reason of !hich he suffered inconvenience, e" arrass"ents and hu"iliations, there y causin# hi" "ental an#uish, serious an%iety, !ounded feelin#s and social hu"iliation, resultin# in "oral da"a#es. It is true that there is no specific "ention of the ter" bad faith in the co"plaint. (ut, the inference of ad faith is there, it "ay e dra!n fro" the facts and circu"stances set forth therein. &1 The contract !as averred to esta lish the relation et!een the parties. (ut the stress of the action is put on !ron#ful e%pulsion. Duite apart fro" the fore#oin# is that 9a< ri#ht the start of the trial, respondent+s counsel placed petitioner on #uard on !hat Carrascoso intended to prove0 That !hile sittin# in the plane in (an#)o), Carrascoso !as ousted y petitioner+s "ana#er !ho #ave his seat to a !hite "an$ &5 and 9 < evidence of ad faith in the fulfill"ent of the contract !as presented !ithout o >ection on the part of the petitioner. It is, therefore, unnecessary to inAuire as to !hether or not there is sufficient aver"ent in the co"plaint to >ustify an a!ard for "oral da"a#es. Ceficiency in the co"plaint, if any, !as cured y the evidence. -n a"end"ent thereof to confor" to the evidence is not even reAuired. &; ,n the Auestion of ad faith, the Court of -ppeals declared0

That the plaintiff !as forced out of his seat in the first class co"part"ent of the plane elon#in# to the defendant -ir France !hile at (an#)o), and !as transferred to the tourist class not only !ithout his consent ut a#ainst his !ill, has een sufficiently esta lished y plaintiff in his testi"ony efore the court, corro orated y the correspondin# entry "ade y the purser of the plane in his note oo) !hich notation reads as follo!s0 /First*class passen#er !as forced to #o to the tourist class a#ainst his !ill, and that the captain refused to intervene/, and y the testi"ony of an eye*!itness, 4rnesto 5. Cuento, !ho !as a co*passen#er. The captain of the plane !ho !as as)ed y the "ana#er of defendant co"pany at (an#)o) to intervene even refused to do so. It is note!orthy that no one on ehalf of defendant ever contradicted or denied this evidence for the plaintiff. It could have een easy for defendant to present its "ana#er at (an#)o) to testify at the trial of the case, or yet to secure his disposition$ ut defendant did neither. &?
The Court of appeals further stated I

=either is there evidence as to !hether or not a prior reservation !as "ade y the !hite "an. :ence, if the e"ployees of the defendant at (an#)o) sold a first*class tic)et to hi" !hen all the seats had already een ta)en, surely the plaintiff should not have een pic)ed out as the one to suffer the conseAuences and to e su >ected to the hu"iliation and indi#nity of ein# e>ected fro" his seat in the presence of others. Instead of e%plainin# to the !hite "an the i"providence co""itted y defendant+s e"ployees, the "ana#er adopted the "ore drastic step of oustin# the plaintiff !ho !as then safely ensconsced in his ri#htful seat. 6e are stren#thened in our elief that this pro a ly !as !hat happened there, y the testi"ony of defendant+s !itness Rafael -ltona#a !ho, !hen as)ed to e%plain the "eanin# of the letters /,.E./ appearin# on the tic)ets of plaintiff, said /that the space is confir"ed for first class. 2i)e!ise, Genaida Faustino, another !itness for defendant, !ho !as the chief of the Reservation ,ffice of defendant, testified as follo!s0 /D :o! does the person in the tic)et*issuin# office )no! !hat reservation the passen#er has arran#ed !ith youB - They call us up y phone and as) for the confir"ation./ 9t.s.n., p. 21?, June 1', 1'5'< In this connection, !e Auote !ith approval !hat the trial Jud#e has said on this point0

6hy did the, usin# the !ords of !itness 4rnesto 5. Cuento, /!hite "an/ have a / etter ri#ht/ to the seat occupied y Mr. CarrascosoB The record is silent. The defendant airline did not prove /any etter/, nay, any ri#ht on the part of the /!hite "an/ to the /First class/ seat that the plaintiff !as occupyin# and for !hich he paid and !as issued a correspondin# /first class/ tic)et. If there !as a >ustified reason for the action of the defendant+s Mana#er in (an#)o), the defendant could have easily proven it y havin# ta)en the testi"ony of the said Mana#er y deposition, ut defendant did not do so$ the presu"ption is that evidence !illfully suppressed !ould e adverse if produced 7@ec. ;', par 9e<, Rules of Court8$ and, under the circu"stances, the Court is constrained to find, as it does find, that the Mana#er of the defendant airline in (an#)o) not "erely as)ed ut threatened the plaintiff to thro! hi" out of the plane if he did not #ive up his /first class/ seat ecause the said Mana#er !anted to acco""odate, usin# the !ords of the !itness 4rnesto 5. Cuento, the /!hite "an/.&. It is really correct to say that the Court of -ppeals in the Auoted portion first transcri ed did not use the ter" / ad faith/. (ut can it e dou ted that the recital of facts therein points to ad faithB The "ana#er not only prevented Carrascoso fro" en>oyin# his ri#ht to a first class seat$ !orse, he i"posed his ar itrary !ill$ he forci ly e>ected hi" fro" his seat, "ade hi" suffer the hu"iliation of havin# to #o to the tourist class co"part"ent * >ust to #ive !ay to another passen#er !hose ri#ht thereto has not een esta lished. Certainly, this is ad faith. Knless, of course, ad faith has assu"ed a "eanin# different fro" !hat is understood in la!. For, / ad faith/ conte"plates a /state of "ind affir"atively operatin# !ith furtive desi#n or !ith so"e "otive of self*interest or !ill or for ulterior purpose./ &' -nd if the fore#oin# !ere not yet sufficient, there is the e%press findin# of bad faith in the >ud#"ent of the Court of First Instance, thus0 The evidence sho!s that the defendant violated its contract of transportation !ith plaintiff in ad faith, !ith the a##ravatin# circu"stances that defendant+s Mana#er in (an#)o) !ent to the e%tent of threatenin# the plaintiff in the presence of "any passen#ers to have hi" thro!n out of the airplane to #ive the /first class/ seat that he !as occupyin# to, a#ain usin# the !ords of the !itness 4rnesto 5. Cuento, a /!hite "an/ !ho" he 9defendant+s Mana#er< !ished to acco""odate, and the defendant has not proven that this /!hite "an/ had any / etter ri#ht/ to occupy the /first class/ seat that the plaintiff !as occupyin#, duly paid for, and for !hich the correspondin# /first class/ tic)et !as issued y the defendant to hi". 10
5. The responsi ility of an e"ployer for the tortious act of its e"ployees need not e essayed. It is !ell settled in la!.11 For the !illful "alevolent act of petitioner+s "ana#er, petitioner, his e"ployer, "ust ans!er. -rticle 21 of the Civil Code says0

-RT. 21. -ny person !ho !illfully causes loss or in>ury to another in a "anner that is contrary to "orals, #ood custo"s or pu lic policy shall co"pensate the latter for the da"a#e.
In parallel circu"stances, !e applied the fore#oin# le#al precept$ and, !e held that upon the provisions of -rticle 221' 910<, Civil Code, "oral da"a#es are recovera le. 12 ;. - contract to transport passen#ers is Auite different in )ind and de#ree fro" any other contractual relation. 1& -nd this, ecause of the relation !hich an air*carrier sustains !ith the pu lic. Its usiness is "ainly !ith the travellin# pu lic. It invites people to avail of the co"forts and advanta#es it offers. The contract of air carria#e, therefore, #enerates a relation attended !ith a pu lic duty. =e#lect or "alfeasance of the carrier+s e"ployees, naturally, could #ive #round for an action for da"a#es. Passen#ers do not contract "erely for transportation. They have a ri#ht to e treated y the carrier+s e"ployees !ith )indness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to e protected a#ainst personal "isconduct, in>urious lan#ua#e, indi#nities and a uses fro" such e"ployees. @o it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of e"ployees to!ards a passen#er #ives the latter an action for da"a#es a#ainst the carrier. 11 Thus, /6here a stea"ship co"pany 15 had accepted a passen#er+s chec), it !as a reach of contract and a tort, #ivin# a ri#ht of action for its a#ent in the presence of third persons to falsely notify her that the chec) !as !orthless and

de"and pay"ent under threat of e>ection, thou#h the lan#ua#e used !as not insultin# and she !as not e>ected./ 1; -nd this, ecause, althou#h the relation of passen#er and carrier is /contractual oth in ori#in and nature/ nevertheless /the act that rea)s the contract "ay e also a tort/. 1? -nd in another case, /6here a passen#er on a railroad train, !hen the conductor ca"e to collect his fare tendered hi" the cash fare to a point !here the train !as scheduled not to stop, and told hi" that as soon as the train reached such point he !ould pay the cash fare fro" that point to destination, there !as nothin# in the conduct of the passen#er !hich >ustified the conductor in usin# insultin# lan#ua#e to hi", as y callin# hi" a lunatic,/ 1. and the @upre"e Court of @outh Carolina there held the carrier lia le for the "ental sufferin# of said passen#er.
1awphl n!t

Petitioner+s contract !ith Carrascoso is one attended !ith pu lic duty. The stress of Carrascoso+s action as !e have said, is placed upon his !ron#ful e%pulsion. This is a violation of pu lic duty y the petitioner air carrier I a case of quasi" delict. Ca"a#es are proper. ?. Petitioner dra!s our attention to respondent Carrascoso+s testi"ony, thus I

D Fou "entioned a out an attendant. 6ho is that attendant and purserB - 6hen !e left already I that !as already in the trip I I could not help it. @o one of the fli#ht attendants approached "e and reAuested fro" "e "y tic)et and I said, 6hat forB and she said, /6e !ill note that you transferred to the tourist class/. I said, /=othin# of that )ind. That is tanta"ount to acceptin# "y transfer./ -nd I also said, /Fou are not #oin# to note anythin# there ecause I a" protestin# to this transfer/. D 6as she a le to note itB - =o, ecause I did not #ive "y tic)et. D - out that purserB - 6ell, the seats there are so close that you feel unco"forta le and you don+t have enou#h le# roo", I stood up and I !ent to the pantry that !as ne%t to "e and the purser !as there. :e told "e, /I have recorded the incident in "y note oo)./ :e read it and translated it to "e I ecause it !as recorded in French I /First class passen#er !as forced to #o to the tourist class a#ainst his !ill, and that the captain refused to intervene./ Mr. L-2T4 I I "ove to stri)e out the last part of the testi"ony of the !itness ecause the est evidence !ould e the notes. Four :onor. C,KRT I I !ill allo! that as part of his testi"ony.
1'

Petitioner char#es that the findin# of the Court of -ppeals that the purser "ade an entry in his note oo) readin# /First class passen#er !as forced to #o to the tourist class a#ainst his !ill, and that the captain refused to intervene/ is predicated upon evidence 7Carrascoso+s testi"ony a ove8 !hich is inco"petent. 6e do not thin) so. The su >ect of inAuiry is not the entry, ut the ouster incident. Testi"ony on the entry does not co"e !ithin the proscription of the est evidence rule. @uch testi"ony is ad"issi le. 1'a (esides, fro" a readin# of the transcript >ust Auoted, !hen the dialo#ue happened, the i"pact of the startlin# occurrence !as still fresh and continued to e felt. The e%cite"ent had not as yet died do!n. @tate"ents then, in this environ"ent, are ad"issi le as part of the res gestae. 50 For, they #ro! /out of the nervous e%cite"ent and "ental and physical condition of the declarant/. 51 The utterance of the purser re#ardin# his entry in the note oo) !as spontaneous, and related to the circu"stances of the ouster incident. Its trust!orthiness has een #uaranteed. 52 It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It for"s part of the res gestae.

-t all events, the entry !as "ade outside the Philippines. -nd, y an e"ployee of petitioner. It !ould have een an easy "atter for petitioner to have contradicted Carrascoso+s testi"ony. If it !ere really true that no such entry !as "ade, the deposition of the purser could have cleared up the "atter. 6e, therefore, hold that the transcri ed testi"ony of Carrascoso is ad"issi le in evidence. .. 4%e"plary da"a#es are !ell a!arded. The Civil Code #ives the court a"ple po!er to #rant e%e"plary da"a#es I in contracts and Auasi* contracts. The only condition is that defendant should have /acted in a !anton, fraudulent, rec)less, oppressive, or "alevolent "anner./ 5& The "anner of e>ect"ent of respondent Carrascoso fro" his first class seat fits into this le#al precept. -nd this, in addition to "oral da"a#es. 51 '. The ri#ht to attorney+s fees is fully esta lished. The #rant of e%e"plary da"a#es >ustifies a si"ilar >ud#"ent for attorneys+ fees. The least that can e said is that the courts elo! felt that it is ut >ust and eAuita le that attorneys+ fees e #iven. 55 6e do not intend to rea) faith !ith the tradition that discretion !ell e%ercised I as it !as here I should not e distur ed. 10. Duestioned as e%cessive are the a"ounts decreed y oth the trial court and the Court of -ppeals, thus0 P25,000.00 as "oral da"a#es$ P10,000.00, y !ay of e%e"plary da"a#es, and P&,000.00 as attorneys+ fees. The tas) of fi%in# these a"ounts is pri"arily !ith the trial court. 5; The Court of -ppeals did not interfere !ith the sa"e. The dictates of #ood sense su##est that !e #ive our i"pri"atur thereto. (ecause, the facts and circu"stances point to the reasona leness thereof.5? ,n alance, !e say that the >ud#"ent of the Court of -ppeals does not suffer fro" reversi le error. 6e accordin#ly vote to affir" the sa"e. Costs a#ainst petitioner. @o ordered.