Case Title: Topic: Breach: Fraud (dolo): Standard of care/diligence

Crisostomo v. CA & Caravan Travel and Tours (G.R. No. 138334) Keywords: The traveller who failed to check her calendar
Date: Aug. 25, 2003
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Nature of the Case: Petition
Petitioner: ESTELA L. CRISOSTOMO
Respondent: THE COURT OF APPEALS and CARAVAN TRAVEL & TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Doctrine:
A company that books, schedules, and arranges flights does not enter into a contract of carriage when an individual employs the services of the former. In this regard, ordinary diligence
is complied with if said company has delivered the necessary documents; it is not necessary to take extraordinary diligence as to ensure that the passenger boards the plane and leaves
for his/her trip.

Relevant Provisions:
CHAPTER 2
. Nature and Effect of Obligations.
Article 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the
parties requires another standard of care. (1094a)
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
Quick Facts:
- Petitioner Crisostomo availed of the services of respondent travel agency for the “Jewels of Europe” tour.

- The tour package was arranged and the travel documents delivered to petitioner.
- Petitioner’s niece Menor, the agency’s ticketing manager, informed the petitioner of the date of the flight.

- Petitioner did not check her travel documents and on the day of the supposed flight, she found out that the flight had already left the day before.

- Menor then asked Crisostomo to avail of a different tour, the “British Pageant” instead.

- Upon arrival from the cheaper tour, petitioner asked for reimbursement of the difference between the sum she paid for the original tour and the substitute tour.

- The travel agency refused to comply despite several demands, prompting the petitioner to sue.

- RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, CA reversed the RTC, hence this petition.
Detailed Facts:
– Petitioner Estela Crisostomo contracted services of respondent Caravan Travel & Tours International Inc. for the latter to arrange, facilitate booking ticketing and accommodation for
the tour Jewels of Europe . The total cost is 74, 322.70. Petitioner was given 5% discount on the amount Commented [DM1]: to England, Holland, Germany,
Austria, Liechstenstein, Switzerland and France
– Menor, the niece of petitioner, worked as ticketing manager for respondent.
Commented [DM2]: amount included airfare
– June 12, 1991; Wednesday: Menor went to her aunt to deliver the travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner gave full payment. Menor asked her aunt to be at NAIA on Saturday Commented [DM3]: also, booking fee was waived
two hrs before the flight, and to board British Airways. Petitioner Crisostomo did not check the tickets afterwards. because petitioner’s niece Meriam Menor was respondents’s
ticketing manager
– NAIA; Sat June 15 1991: Petitioner went NAIA to take the first leg of the flight. She was made known at the airport that the flight was scheduled June 14, 1991, instead of that very Commented [DM4]: from MNL to HK
day.

– Due to the missing of petitioner’s flight, Menor advised her aunt to just take another tour instead: the British Pageant.. Commented [DM5]: England, Scotland, Wales

- For the British Pageant, petitioner Estela paid $785 dollars or P20,881. Petitioner gave respondent, Caravan Travel & Tours, US$300 as partial payment. The trip commenced July of Commented [DM6]: at exchange rate of P26.60
1991.
Commented [DM7]: conversion: P7980
– When petitioner returned from the trip, she demanded from respondent reimbursement of P61,421.70 . This amount was for the difference between what she paid for Jewels of
Europe and owed for British Pageant.
– Several demands were made on respondent. Respondent kept refusing reimbursement.

Respondent: “The ticket is nonrefundable!”

– Petitioner filed a complaint @ RTC – Makati City against respondent . Commented [DM8]: for breach of contract of carriage
and damages.
P: It is the fault of respondent that she was not able to join the Jewels Tour for the ticket did not clearly indicate departure date. Respondent is negligent in informing wrong flight
schedule via her niece, Menor.

P: Since British Tour was mere substitute of Jewels, the sums paid for the two may be set-off.

R: Petitioner was informed of correct departure date for such date was clearly printed on the plane ticket. Plus, travel documents were given to her two days prior trip. Hence, she was Commented [DM9]: Thru Operations Manager,
to blame for not checking the said documents ahead of time. Concepcion Chipeco
R: “We can no longer reimburse amount for Jewels to her for the said amount was already remitted to our principal in Singapore . The amount was already billed even if petitioner did
not join the tour. Commented [DM10]: Lotus Travel LTD
R: European tour organizer, Insight Int’l Tours LTD determines our cost of packages based on minimum number of projected participants. Because of this, disallowing refunds to those
failed to take the tour is an accepted industry practice.
R: British Tour was not a substitute for the other package tour for both were independently procured. Petitioner was allowed to make partial payment of US$300 only because her niece
was an employee of respondent.
R: “I pray that petitioner pay the balance for British Pageant” Commented [DM11]: P12,901

TC:
√ “Caravan tours, pay the refund of P53,989.43 + legal interest of 12% starting Jan 16, 1992”
√ pay 5,000 for attorney fees
- respondent is negligent in advising petitioner of departure date
- Menor was not presented here as witness. Menor was considered negligent. Menor’s negligence concurred with the negligence of petitioner and resultantly caused damage to the Commented [DM12]: Because she was already working
latter. in France
- Petitioner should have checked the date and time . Petitioner is also guilty of contributory negligence. That being said, deduct 10% from amount claimed as refund.
Commented [DM13]: Via
CA:
- Both parties at fault! Rule 131, Section 3 (e) of the Rules of Court that
- Petitioner is more negligent than respondent for petitioner is a well-travelled lawyer . evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced and thus considered petitioner’s
- Petitioner has forfeited her right to the Jewels Tour. Hence, petitioner must pay respondent the balance for British Tour she had.
uncontradicted testimony to be sufficient proof of her
√ “Crisostomo, pay P12,901 as balance of price of British + legal interest at 6%”
claim.
√ attorney fees set by trial court scrapped

– petitioner filed petition under Rule 45 to SC

Issue 1: Quick Ratio:
WON a The petitioner is not entitled to a refund because she was negligent.

travel - She was not able to prove that Menor had been negligent and the fact that the private respondent did not produce Menor as a witness should not be used against it
agency is because the burden of proving the allegations rests on the petitioner, and also because Menor is abroad.
bound - The Court found that respondent company performed its duty diligently, hence the petitioner cannot recover damages.

under the - Fault or negligence consists in failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of an obligation. There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each
law to and every contractual obligation.
observe
extraordina Detailed Ratio:
ry diligence P: Respondent did not observe standard of care required of common carrier when she was informed of wrong flight schedule
in the P: “I cannot be more negligent since respondent required to exercise extraordinary diligence in fulfillment of obligation. If I’m negligent, it is merely contributory only”
performanc
e of its – Contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person/ association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place
obligation to another for a fixed price
– NO Classifications of said persons/associations:
private/special, and
Put common/public
differently,
WON – Common carrier def. persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by lane, water or air, Commented [DM14]: under Article 1732 of the Civil
petitioner is for compensation, offering their services to the public. Code
entitled to
a refund
- Respondent is not an entity engaged in transporting passengers/goods. Neither is it private/common carrier. The contract in this case is one for services. Its covenant
given that it
was the was simply to make travel arrangements Commented [DM15]: ie procurement of tickets;
private facilitation travel permits and visas; booking tours
- Petitioner’s buying of tickets from respondent does not make respondent an ipso facto common carrier . Respondent is merely an agent of airline whom petitioner
respondent
’s fault that contracted for carriage. Respondent’s obligation to petitioner was merely to see to it that petitioner was properly booked.
she missed
her flight in
the original Object of the contract in this case: respondent’s service of arranging and facilitating petitioner’s booking ticketing and accommodation
tour – NO
versus
Object of contract of carriage: transport of passengers/goods

- The nature of a contractual relation is determinative of degree of care required. Due to public policy, common carrier in contract of carriage bound to carry as far as
human care and foresight can provide using utmost diligence of very cautions persons. Respondent is not a common carrier, but a travel agency. It is not bound for
extraordinary diligence but simply of a good father of a family. Commented [DM16]: under CC 1173

– Good father of a family def. connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar
situation.

– Test to determine whether or not negligence attended performance of obligation: 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? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

Issue 2: : Ratio:
WON Recall: Menor was not called to witness stand to refute allegation of negligence because she was already working in France at the time of complaint. It was physically
Menor was impossible for her to show up. Thus, the lower court applied presumption under Rule 131 of Sec 3(e)
considered
negligent – Menor’s negligence was not sufficiently proved. The only evidence presented on this score was petitioner’s uncorroborated narration of the even. Trial court was
as held by wrong in holding that the negligence of Menor concurred with the negligence of the petitioner. Respondent exercised due diligence and followed SOP in rendering
the trial services because the plane ticket reflected departure date and time, and that two days prior the flight, respondent had delivered all that was necessary for petitioner.
court – NO Respondent performed the prestation of contract.

- The failure of respondent to rebut petitioner does not give rise to inference unfavorable to respondent. It was an error that the lower curt invoked that the respondent
was willfully suppressed evidence.

- When petitioner received documents, it was incumbent that she read it. There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation and
each case must be determined upon its particular facts.
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. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to pay
respondent the amount of P12,901.00 representing the balance of the price of the British Pageant Package Tour, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum, to be
computed from the time the counterclaim was filed until the finality of this Decision. After this Decision becomes final and executory, the rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed until
23
the obligation is fully settled, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
SO ORDERED.