12 Crisostomo Vs CA and Caravan Travels

ESTELA L.
CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner,
vs.
The Court of Appeals and CARAVAN TRAVEL & TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC
Facts:
Petitioner herein contracted the services of the respondent to arrange and
facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a tour called “Jewels of Europe”.
Since her niece was the ticketing manager of the said company, she was given a
discount. Said niece then delivered the travel documents to the petitioner, and in turn,
Crisostomo gave her 74,000.00, which was the full payment of the package tour.
On June 15 1991, the petitioner went to NAIA to take the said flight. However, it
turned out that her flight was scheduled on June 14, 1991. She then called her niece to
complain. Her niece offered her another tour called British Pageant for the amount of
20K, but the petitioner only made a partial payment of 7,980.00 pesos.
Upon her return, she demanded reimbursement for the payment that she made
for the Jewels of Europe tour, but the company refused to reimburse the amount.
Petitioner was thus constrained to file a complaint against respondent for breach of
contract of carriage and damages. In its defense, the company claimed that it is
accepted industry practice to disallow refund for individuals who failed to take a booked
tour. Further, it stated that the British Pageant Tour was not a substitute for the package
tour that the petitioner missed, as it was a tour that was independently procured by
petitioner after realizing that she made a mistake in missing her flight. The only reason
as to why she was made allowed to make partial payment was because her niece was
an employee of the company.
In its decision, the RTC held that the company was negligent because it
erroneously advised the petitioner of her departure date. However, it also held that the
petitioner was also guilty of contributory negligence for not verifying the exact date.
CA, however, reversed the decision of the RTC, stating that although both parties
are at fault, petitioner is more negligent than respondent because as a lawyer and well-
traveled person, she should have known better than to simply rely on what was told to
her. Hence, this petition
Issue:
Whether the respondent company failed to observe the standard of care required
of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight schedule.
Held:
Respondent is not a common carrier
First of all, the respondent is not a common carrier. Under Article 1732 of the CC,
a common carrier is defined as persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in
the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or
air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. In this case, it is obvious that
respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or
goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Its services were limited
only to procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking
customers for tours.
Contract between the parties

is an ordinary one for services
Under the law, a common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to carry
passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons and with due regard for all the circumstances. However,
respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency. It is thus not bound under the
law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation, as petitioner
claims. As such, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a
family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.
Respondent is not negligent
Since the standard of care required is that of a good father of a family, the test to
determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is: did the
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
In this case, evidence on record shows that respondent exercised due diligence
in performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard procedure in
rendering its services to petitioner. As correctly observed by the lower court, the plane
ticket issued to petitioner clearly reflected the departure date and time, contrary to
petitioner’s contention. The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers
and instructions, were likewise delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip.
Respondent also properly booked petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary
documents and procured the plane tickets. It arranged petitioner’s hotel accommodation
as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its
avowed undertaking. Had petitioner exercised due diligence in the conduct of her
affairs, there would have been no reason for her to miss the flight.
Dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51932 is AFFIRMED

12 Crisostomo Vs CA and Caravan Travels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Crisostomo Vs CA and Caravan Travels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Crisostomo Vs CA and Caravan Travels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTELA L.

Contract between the parties

Respondent is not negligent

You might also like