11 | RML x VAMS

AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO, substituted by his surviving heirs represented by Dolores
P. Gillego, respondent.
Damages recoverable from common carriers; moral | December 15, 2010 | Villarama

DOCTRINE: In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and
deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. Not every case of
mental anguish, fright or serious anxiety calls for the award of moral damages. Where in breaching the contract
of carriage the airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to
the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation which the parties had foreseen or could
have reasonably foreseen. In such a case the liability does not include moral and exemplary damages.
Bad faith should be established by clear and convincing evidence. The settled rule is that the law always presumes
good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to the acts of another has the burden of proving
that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive.
Inattention to and lack of care for the interest of its passengers who are entitled to its utmost
consideration, particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles the passenger to an award
of moral damages. What the law considers as bad faith which may furnish the ground for an award of moral
damages would be bad faith in securing the contract and in the execution thereof, as well as in the enforcement
of its terms, or any other kind of deceit.
The purpose of awarding moral damages is to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or
amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of defendant's culpable
action. Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides that assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court
according to the circumstances of each case. This discretion is limited by the principle that the amount awarded
should not be palpably excessive as to indicate that it was the result of prejudice or corruption on the part of the
trial court. Simply put, the amount of damages must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the injury suffered.
SUMMARY: After changing his flight to Budapest with another flight which had an earlier departure time, Gillego, upon
arrival, discovered that his luggage was missing. Gillego was forced to buy stuff, was not able to take meds, had to be
taken to a medical clinic, and was forced to reconstruct his notes etc. for the symposium in which he was supposed to
give a speech. Air France did not explain how the luggage was lost and repeatedly ignored Gillego’s follow-ups. Gillego
filed a complaint for damages against Air France. He was asking as moral damages P 1 million. Air France, who had
retrieved the luggage, only gave it to Gillego after the trial. RTC ruled in favor of Gillego. CA affirmed. SC ruled that Air
France was guilty of bad faith and thus liable for moral damages but the amount awarded should be reduced for being
excessive.

FACTS:
• Respondent Bonifacio H. Gillego1 was invited to participate as one of the keynote speakers at the 89th Inter-
Parliamentary Conference Symposium on Parliament Guardian of Human Rights2 to be held in Budapest, Hungary
and Tokyo, Japan from 05/19-22/1993 → left Manila on board petitioner Air France’s aircraft bound for Paris France
by 05/16/1993 → arrived in Paris 5:00 AM 05/17/1993 → waited at the De’ Gaulle International Airport for his
connecting flight to Budapest scheduled at 3:15 p.m. that same day → learned that Air France had another aircraft
bound for Budapest with an earlier departure time at 10:00 a.m. than his scheduled flight. → went to Air France’s
counter at the airport and made arrangements for the change in his booking → was given by Air France a
corresponding ticket and boarding pass for Flight No. 2024 and also a new baggage claim stub for his checked-in
luggage → arrived in Budapest → was unable to locate his luggage at the claiming section → sought assistance
from Air France’s counter → was advised to just wait for his luggage at his hotel and that Air France’s
representatives would take charge of delivering the same to him the same day
• The luggage was not delivered by Air France representatives → Gillego followed-up → The luggage was still not
delivered
• Gillego returned to the Philippines → complained via lawyer to Air France’s Station Manager about the lost luggage
and the resulting damages he suffered in Budapest3 + demanded the sum of P 1M from Air France as compensation
for his loss, inconvenience, and moral damages → Air France continued to ignore Gillego’s follow-ups.

1 Then incumbent Congressman of the 2nd District of Sorsogon and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Civil and Human Rights
2 The Philippines is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which organized the event.
3 claiming that:

• His single luggage contained his personal effects e.g. clothes, toiletries, medicines for hypertension, and the speeches he had prepared,
including the notes and reference materials he needed for the conference → left with only his travel docs, pocket money, and the clothes
he was wearing.
• He was forced to shop for personal items including new clothes and medicine = $ ~1000.
• He had to prepare another speech in which he had difficulty due to lack of data and information
11 | RML x VAMS
• Gillego filed a complaint for damages against Air France alleging/asserting that
o by reason of its negligence and breach of obligation to transport and deliver his luggage, he suffered
inconvenience, serious anxiety, physical suffering, and sleepless nights (pfft)
o due to the physical, mental, and emotional strain resulting from the loss of his luggage, aggravated by the
fact that he failed to take his regular medication, he had to be taken to a medical clinic in Tokyo, Japan for
emergency treatment
o as common carrier, Air France is under obligation to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
checked-in luggage and to see to it that [Gillego’s] luggage entrusted to its custody would accompany him
on his flight and/or could be claimed by him upon arrival at his point of destination or delivered to him without
delay.
o Air France should be held liable for actual damages = $2K/P 40K, moral damages = P 1M, exemplary
damages = P 500K, attorney’s fees = P 50K and costs of suit.
• Air France argues that the claims for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees have no basis in
fact and in law and are, moreover, speculative and unconscionable
o under the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage, its
liability for lost or delayed for the lost checked-in baggage of Gillego = 250 francs/USD 20 per kg = liquidated
damages .: Gillego not entitled to any other damage
o basically it exercise due diligence in taking care of and locating Gillego’s luggage (which had been allegedly
lost due to force majeure and which contents Gillego allegedly did not declare) and in the selection and
supervision of its employees
o that it acted in good faith in denying Gillego’s demand for damages
• RTC ruled in favor of Gillego, saying that
o Air France was guilty of gross negligence and willful misconduct
o The Warsaw Convention argument should be rejected citing Alitalia v. IAC
o The Property Irregularity Report (PIR)4 was fabricated only as an afterthought.
• Air France appealed to CA
• CA affirmed the RTC’s decision and sustained the RTC’s finding of gross negligence, bad faith and willful
misconduct which justified the aware of moral and exemplary damages, saying that:
o The unreasonable delay in the delivery of the luggage has not be satisfactorily explained by Air France
o The unapologetic Air France faulted Gillego for not leaving a local address in Budapest in order for Air
France to contact him in the event the luggage is fond = clear showing of willful misconduct and a deliberate
design to avoid liability = bad faith
• Air France Rule 45ed, saying that
o The award of the RTC & CA of extravagant sums punishes Air France & enriches Gillego ≠ function of
moral damages
o Upon the fact/s established, the damages awarded or not proportionate or commensurate to the wrong or
injury supposedly inflicted.
o Despite the unfortunate incident, Gillego was still able to reconstruct the speeches, notes and study guides
he had earlier prepared for the conference in Budapest and Tokyo, and to attend, speak, and participated
therein as scheduled and considered that Gillego’s expertise and the fact that he researched and wrote the
speech, he should not have difficulty delivering his speech
o There is no evidence that members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union made derogatory statements or even
knew that he was unprepared for the speech.
o The mere failure of a carrier to deliver a passenger’s baggage at the agreed place and time did not ipso
facto amount to willful misconduct as to make it liable for moral and exemplary damages
o It attended to Gillego’s problem with utmost courtesy, concern and dispatch
o It was never alleged that its employees were at anytime rude, mistreated him, or in anyway showed
improper behavior.

ISSUE: Whether Air France was liable for and Gillego entitled to moral damages – YES

RULING:

4
Issued at the airline station upon complaint by the passenger concerning missing baggage
11 | RML x VAMS
• Air France did not overcome the presumption of negligence → Gillego received the luggage and did not anymore
press for actual or compensatory damages → RTC proceeded to determine only Gillego’s claim for moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
• SEE DOCTRINE ¶ 1 & ¶ 2
• Tan v. Northwest Airlines (moral damages = deleted; carrier not motivated by malice or bad faith but because of
weight & balance restrictions as safety measures) and PAL v. CA (moral damages = sustained; off-loading of
baggage to another destination + neglect in providing necessary accommodations + assistance to stranded
passengers + discourteous acts of employees)
Air France liable for moral damages
• Air France acted in bad faith in ignoring Gillego’s follow-up calls
o Entries in the PIR not properly identified or authenticated by the airline station representative at Budapest who
initiated and inputed the said entries
o Why would Gillego not vital info i.e. hotel address and contact number???
o No explanation as to how the luggage was lost & why Air France never communicated with Gillego concerning
his lost luggage long after Gillego returned to the Philippines.
o Air France only returned Gillego’s missing luggage after the trial of the case.
• SEE DOCTRINE ¶ 3
The amount of moral damages should be reduced from P 1M to P 200K
• The amount of moral damages awarded is excessive and not proportionate to the loss suffered by passenger under the
circumstances
• Trans World Airlines v. CA (social standing of the aggrieved passenger as lawyer and director of several companies
considered → moral damages reduced) *insert Bobby “Bakit Parang Kasalanan Ko” Salazar meme here*
• SEE DOCTRINE ¶ 4

DISPOSITION: Petition is DENIED.