G.R. No.
138334 August 25, 2003 HELD/RULING
ESTELA L. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and CARAVAN TRAVEL &
TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondents. NO and the contention of the petitioner has no merit
A contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person or association
FACTS of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to
another for a fixed price. Such person or association of persons are regarded as carriers
Petitioner contracted the services of respondent to arrange and facilitate her booking, and are classified as private or special carriers and common or public carriers
ticketing and accommodation in a tour dubbed “Jewels of Europe” (Art 1732 Civil code = common carrier are persons, corporations, firms or associations
Pursuant to said contract, the travel documents and plane tickets were delivered to the engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,
petitioner who in turn gave the full payment water or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public)
Menor (her niece who works for the travel and tours) told her to be at NAIA on Saturday The object of petitioner’s contractual relation with respondent is the service of arranging
2 hours before her flight and facilitating petitioners booking, ticketing and accommodation in the package tour. In
WITHOUT CHECKING THE DOCUMENTS petitioner went to NAIA where she discovered contrast, the object of a contract of carriage is the transportation of passengers or goods.
the flight already departed the previous day It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one
Petitioner called Menor to complain but end up taking another tour “British Pageant” for services and not one of carriage
and petitioner paid partially. Respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers
Upon return petitioner demand reimbursement representing the difference between the or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier
two tours. But Respondent refused to reimburse For reasons of public policy, a common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to
Petitioner now filed a complaint for breach of contract 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
RTC RULING
As earlier stated, however, respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency. It is
Respondent was negligent in erroneously advising petitioner of her departure date thus not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of
through its employee, Menor, who was not presented as witness to rebut petitioner’s its obligation, as petitioner claims.
testimony Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of
Petitioner should have verified the exact date and time of departure by looking at her care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173
ticket and should have simply not relied on Menor’s verbal representation, thus Since Respondent properly booked petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary
petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence and accordingly, deducted 10% from the documents and procured the plane tickets. It arranged petitioner’s hotel accommodation
amount being claimed as refund as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its avowed
undertaking. it is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as
CA RULING (REVERSED RTC RULING) well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour
As correctly observed by the lower court, the plane ticket issued to petitioner clearly
likewise found both parties to be at fault, however petitioner is more negligent than
reflected the departure date and time, contrary to petitioner’s contention. The travel
respondent because as a lawyer and well-traveled person, she should have known better
documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise
than to simply rely on what was told to her
delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip. Respondent also properly booked
Petitioner now files to SC contending:
petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane
Respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it tickets. It arranged petitioner’s hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers and
informed her wrongly of the flight schedule sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its avowed undertaking. The evidence on
She could not be deemed more negligent than respondent since the latter is required by record shows that respondent company performed its duty diligently and did not commit
law to exercise extraordinary any contractual breach. Hence, petitioner cannot recover and must bear her own
diligence in the fulfillment of its obligation. damage.
ISSUE 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
WON Respondent is negligent in the fulfilment of its obligation to petitioner