MANAY et al vs. CEBU AIR, INC. GR No.
210621 April 4, 2016
Leonen, J.
FACTS: Carlos S. Jose (Jose) purchased 20 Cebu Pacific round-trip tickets from Manila to
Palawan for himself and on behalf of his relatives and friends . He specified to Alou, the
Cebu Pacific ticketing agent that his preferred date and time of departure from Manila to
Palawan should be on July 20, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. and that his preferred date and time for their
flight back to Manila should be on July 22, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. After paying for the tickets, Alou
printed the tickets, which consisted of 3 pages, and recapped only the first page to him. Since
the first page contained the details he specified to Alou, he no longer read the other pages of
the flight information.
After their trip or on the afternoon of July 22, 2008, the group proceeded to the airport for
their flight back to Manila. During the processing of their boarding passes, they were informed
by Cebu Pacific personnel that 9 of them could not be admitted because their tickets were for
the 10:05 a.m. flight earlier that day. Jose informed the ground personnel that he personally
purchased the tickets and specifically instructed the ticketing agent that all 20 of them should
be on the 4:15 p.m. flight to Manila. Upon checking the tickets, they learned that only the first
2 pages had the schedule Jose specified. They were left with no other option but to rebook
their tickets. They then learned that their return tickets had been purchased as part of the
promo sales of the airline, and the cost to rebook the flight would be 7,000.00 more
expensive than the promo tickets. The sum of the new tickets amounted to 65,000.00.
They offered to pay the amount by credit card but were informed by the ground personnel that
they only accepted cash. They then offered to pay in dollars, since most of them were
balikbayans and had the amount on hand, but the airline personnel still refused. Eventually,
they pooled enough cash to be able to buy tickets for 5 of their companions. The other 4 were
left behind in Palawan and had to spend the night at an inn, incurring additional expenses.
Upon his arrival in Manila, Jose immediately purchased 4 tickets for the companions they left
behind, which amounted to 5,205.
Jose went to Cebu Pacifics ticketing office in Robinsons Galleria to complain about the
allegedly erroneous booking and the rude treatment that his group encountered from the
ground personnel in Palawan. Jose and his companions were unsatisfied with Cebu Pacifics
response so they filed a Complaint for Damages against Cebu Pacific before the MeTC. They
prayed for actual damages: 42,955.00, moral damages: 45,000.00, exemplary damages:
50,000.00, and attorneys fees.
MeTC: ordered Cebu Pacific to pay Jose and his companions 41,044.50 in actual damages
and 20,000.00 in attorneys fees with costs of suit.
RTC: dismissed the appeal. Cebu Pacific appealed to the CA, arguing that it was not at fault
for the damages caused to the passengers.
CA: granted the appeal and reversed MeTC and RTC.
-The extraordinary diligence expected of common carriers only applies to the
carriage of passengers and not to the act of encoding the requested flight schedule. It was
incumbent upon the passenger to exercise ordinary care in reviewing flight details and
checking schedules. Cebu Pacifics counterclaim, however, was denied since there was no
evidence that Jose and his companions filed their Complaint in bad faith and with malice.
ISSUE: W/N Cebu Air, Inc. is liable for damages for the issuance of a plane ticket with an
allegedly erroneous flight schedule
HELD: NO. Common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the
performance of its obligations under the contract of carriage. This extraordinary diligence
must be observed not only in the transportation of goods and services but also in the issuance
of the contract of carriage, including its ticketing operations. The obligation of the airline to
exercise extraordinary diligence commences upon the issuance of the contract of carriage.
Ticketing, as the act of issuing the contract of carriage, is necessarily included in the exercise
of extraordinary diligence. Once a plane ticket is issued, the common carrier binds itself to
deliver the passenger safely on the date and time stated in the ticket. The contractual
obligation of the common carrier to the passenger is governed principally by what is written
on the contract of carriage.
The common carriers obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of the
contract of carriage is fulfilled by requiring a full review of the flight schedules to be given to
a prospective passenger before payment. Based on the information stated on the contract of
carriage, all three (3) pages were recapped to petitioner Jose. The only evidence petitioners
have in order to prove their true intent of having the entire group on the 4:15 p.m. flight is
petitioner Joses self-serving testimony that the airline failed to recap the last page of the
tickets to him. They have neither shown nor introduced any other evidence before the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, or this Court.
Even assuming that the ticketing agent encoded the incorrect flight information, it is
incumbent upon the purchaser of the tickets to at least check if all the information is correct
before making the purchase. Once the ticket is paid for and printed, the purchaser is presumed
to have agreed to all its terms and conditions. Considering that respondent was entitled to deny
check-in to passengers whose names do not match their photo identification, it would have
been prudent for petitioner Jose to check if all the names of his companions were encoded
correctly. Since the tickets were for 20 passengers, he was expected to have checked each
name on each page of the tickets in order to see if all the passengers names were encoded and
correctly spelled. Had he done this, he would have noticed that there was a different flight
schedule encoded on the third page of the tickets since the flight schedule was stated directly
above the passengers names. Moreover, the tickets were issued 37 days before their departure
from Manila and 39 days from their departure from Palawan. There was more than enough
time to correct any alleged mistake in the flight schedule.
Petitioners, in failing to exercise the necessary care in the conduct of their affairs, were
without a doubt negligent. Thus, they are not entitled to damages.
Note: The Air Passenger Bill of Rights recognizes that a contract of carriage is a contract of
adhesion, and thus, all conditions and restrictions must be fully explained to the passenger
before the purchase of the ticket. It acknowledges that while a passenger has the option to
buy or not to buy the service, the decision of the passenger to buy the ticket binds such
passenger[.] Thus, the airline is mandated to place in writing all the conditions it will impose
on the passenger. However, the duty of an airline to disclose all the necessary information in
the contract of carriage does not remove the correlative obligation of the passenger to exercise
ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs. The passenger is still expected to read
through the flight information in the contract of carriage before making his or her purchase. If
he or she fails to exercise the ordinary diligence expected of passengers, any resulting damage
should be borne by the passenger.