Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 |Page
contending
refundable.
that
the
same
was
non-
2 |Page
Held:
B) No.
The negligence of the obligor in the
performance of the obligation renders him
liable for damages for the resulting loss
suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of
the obligor consists in his failure to exercise
due care and prudence in the performance of
the obligation as the nature of the obligation
so demands.
In the case at bar, Caravan Travel and Tours
exercised due diligence in performing its
obligations under the contract and followed
standard procedure in rendering its services
to Estela. The plane ticket issued to petitioner
clearly reflected the departure date and time,
contrary to Estelas contention. The travel
documents, consisting of the tour itinerary,
vouchers and instructions, were likewise
delivered to her two days prior to the trip.
The Caravan Travel and Tours also properly
booked Estela for the tour, prepared the
necessary documents and procured the plane
tickets.
It
arranged
Estelas
hotel
accommodation as well as food, land
transfers and sightseeing excursions, in
accordance with its avowed undertaking.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the
Caravan Travel and Tours performed its
prestation under the contract as well as
everything else that was essential to book
Estela for the tour.
Hence, Estela cannot recover and must bear
her own damage.
De Guzman v. CA
Facts: Respondent Ernesto Cendana was a
junk dealer. He buys scrap materials and
brings those that he gathered to Manila for
resale using 2 six-wheeler trucks. On the
return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would
load his vehicle with cargo which various
merchants wanted delivered, charging fee
lower than the commercial rates. Sometime
in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de
Guzman contracted with respondent for the
delivery of 750 cartons of Liberty Milk. On
December 1, 1970, respondent loaded the
cargo. Only 150 boxes were delivered to
petitioner because the truck carrying the
boxes was hijacked along the way. Petitioner
commenced an action claiming the value of
the lost merchandise. Petitioner argues that
respondent, being a common carrier, is
bound to exercise extraordinary diligence,
which it failed to do. Private respondent
denied that he was a common carrier, and so
he could not be held liable for force majeure.
The trial court ruled against the respondent,
but such was reversed by the Court of
Appeals.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not private respondent is a
common carrier
(2) Whether private respondent is liable for
the loss of the goods
3 |Page
Erezo v. Jepte
Facts: Defendant-appellant is the registered
owner of a six by six truck bearing. On
August, 9, 1949, while the same was being
driven by Rodolfo Espino y Garcia, it collided
with a taxicab at the intersection of San
Andres and Dakota Streets, Manila. As the
truck went off the street, it hit Ernesto Erezo
and another, and the former suffered injuries,
as a result of which he died.
4 |Page
5 |Page
6 |Page
7 |Page
8 |Page
9 |Page
10 | P a g e
transportation
indiscriminately
to
the
students of a particular school living within or
near where they operated the service and for
a fee.
Being a common carrier, what is required of
the Pereas is not mere diligence of a good
father. What is specifically required from
them by law is extraordinary diligence a
fact which they failed to prove in court. Verily,
their obligation as common carriers did not
cease upon their exercise of diligently
choosing Alfaro as their employee.
(It is recommended that you read the full
text, the Supreme Court made an elaborate
and extensive definition of common and
private carriers as well as their distinctions.)
Award of Damages for Aarons loss of earning
capacity despite he being a high school
student at the time of his death
11 | P a g e