Scribd
Upload
39 views2 pages

Air France v. Gillego

This case involved a complaint filed by Congressman Gillego against Air France for loss of his luggage when traveling from Manila to Budapest for a conference. Despite numerous attempts to locate his luggage, Air France failed to deliver it. Gillego had to purchase replacement clothes and medications. The courts found that Air France was grossly negligent and acted in bad faith. However, the Supreme Court found the award of 1 million pesos in moral and exemplary damages to be excessive given the circumstances and Gillego's actual suffering. The award was reduced to a reasonable amount.

Uploaded by

Kris Hannah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views2 pages

Air France v. Gillego

This case involved a complaint filed by Congressman Gillego against Air France for loss of his luggage when traveling from Manila to Budapest for a conference. Despite numerous attempts to locate his luggage, Air France failed to deliver it. Gillego had to purchase replacement clothes and medications. The courts found that Air France was grossly negligent and acted in bad faith. However, the Supreme Court found the award of 1 million pesos in moral and exemplary damages to be excessive given the circumstances and Gillego's actual suffering. The award was reduced to a reasonable amount.

Uploaded by

Kris Hannah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AIR FRANCE V.

GILLEGO

G.R. NO. 165266

DECEMBER 15, 2010

FACTS:

Gillego, then incumbent Congressman and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee
on Civil, Political and Human Rights, was invited to participate as one of the keynote speakers at the 89th
Inter-Parliamentary Conference Symposium on Parliament Guardian of Human Rights to be held in
Budapest, Hungary and Tokyo, Japan.

On May 16, 1993, Gillego left Manila on board Air Frances aircraft bound for Paris, France. While
waiting at the Airport for his connecting flight to Budapest scheduled a few hours after his arrival learned
that Air France had another aircraft bound for Budapest with an earlier departure time than his scheduled
flight. He then made arrangements for the change in his booking. He was given a corresponding ticket and
boarding pass and also a new baggage claim stub for his checked-in luggage. However, his baggage despite
numerous follow-up was never delivered to him prompting Gillego to purchase new set of clothes and
other personal effects.

Gillego filed a complaint for damages against the Air France alleging that by reason of its
negligence and breach of obligation to transport and deliver his luggage, Gillego suffered inconvenience,
serious anxiety, physical suffering and sleepless nights. It was further alleged that 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, Gillego had to be taken to a medical clinic in Tokyo, Japan for emergency
treatment.

The RTC found there was gross negligence on the part of Air France. It likewise found Air France
guilty of willful misconduct as it persistently disregarded the rights of Gillego. As to the applicability of the
limited liability for lost baggage under the Warsaw Convention, the trial court rejected the argument of
Air France. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision.

ISSUES:

I. Was there legal and factual basis that Air France's actions were attended by gross negligence, bad faith
and willful misconduct and that it acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner to justify award of moral and exemplary damages?

II. Is the amount of damages awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA as moral and exemplary damages
excessive, unconscionable and unreasonable?

HELD:

I. In an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that
the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract
and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier.

The action filed by the respondent is founded on such breach of the contract of carriage with
petitioner who offered no satisfactory explanation for the unreasonable delay in the delivery of
respondents baggage. The presumption of negligence was not overcome by the petitioner and hence its
liability for the delay was sufficiently established.

The Court held that the trial and appellate courts did not err in finding that petitioner acted in bad
faith in repeatedly ignoring respondents follow-up calls. Clearly, Air France did not give the attention and
care due to its passenger whose baggage was not transported and delivered to him at his travel
destination and scheduled time; 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.
HELD:

II. The amount of damages must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the injury suffered. 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. On
the other hand, the aim of awarding exemplary damages is to deter serious wrongdoings. Hence, the
Court held that the sum of P1,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court is excessive and not proportionate
to the loss or suffering inflicted on the passenger under the circumstances.

DENIED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy