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 Corporation, petitioner's General Sales Agent in Makati. The itineraryc o v e r e d b y t h e t i c k e t i n c l u d e d s e v e r a l c i t i e s , w i t h c e r t a i n s e g m e n t s t h e r e o f r e s t r i c t e d b y 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 some 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 request of Atty. Morales toshorten his trip. 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 thenecessary request to Manila a Hamburg, Paris, Geneva, Rome, Paris, Hongkong and Manilaroute. Still, the request was denied. Atty. Morales, therefore, had to buy an entirely new set of tickets, paying 1,914 German marks for the homeward route. Upon arrival in Manila, Atty.Morales filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damag es. 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 award of damages. Questioning the factual findings of the CA Air France filed a petition for 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'sruling that there was breach of contract of carriage is premised on petitioner's refusal to re -route Atty. Morales and, in effect, requiring him to purchase a new set of tickets. International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Resolution No. 275 e, 2., specialnote reads: "Where a fare is restricted and such restrictions are not clearly e v i d e n t f r o m t h e required entries on the ticket, such restrictions may be written, stamped or reprinted in plainlanguage in the Endorsement/Restrictions" box of the applicable flight co upon(s); or 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 the request. It is essential b e f o r e a n a w a r d o f d a m a g e s t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t m u s t 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 upon 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 a b s e n c e o f b a d f a i t h . Atty. M o r a l e s h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w w a n t o n , m a l e v o l e n t o r r e c k l e s 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 s u c h l i m i t a t i o n s a n d r e s t r i c t i o n s . A n a w a r d o f m o r a l a n d e x e m p l a r y d a m a g e s c a n n o t b e sustained under the circumstances, but petitioner has to refund the unused coupons in the Air France ticket to the private respondent.