Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted with respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. for a package tour called "Jewels of Europe." The tour, costing P74,322.70 and including airfare, was arranged by respondent's employee, Meriam Menor, who was petitioner's niece. Petitioner paid the full amount, receiving her travel documents two days before the scheduled departure on June 15, 1991. Upon arriving at the airport, petitioner discovered her flight had departed the previous day, June 14, 1991. Subsequently, petitioner agreed to a substitute tour, "British Pageant," for which she paid US$785.00 (P20,881.00), making a partial payment of US$300.00 (P7,980.00). Upon returning, petitioner demanded a refund of P61,421.70, the difference between the "Jewels of Europe" cost and her payment for the "British Pageant" tour, which respondent refused. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for breach of contract of carriage and damages, alleging negligence in informing her of the wrong departure date and that the "British Pageant" tour should be set off against the "Jewels of Europe" payment. Respondent denied negligence, asserting the departure date was clearly indicated on the ticket and petitioner failed to verify it. Respondent also claimed the "Jewels of Europe" payment was non-refundable and remitted to its principal, and that the "British Pageant" was a separate booking. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent to refund P53,989.43 with legal interest and attorney's fees, finding contributory negligence on petitioner's part. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision, holding petitioner more negligent and thus not entitled to damages, ordering her to pay the balance for the "British Pageant" tour. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing it erred in reversing the trial court's ruling. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals incorrectly found her more negligent than the respondent, asserting that as a common carrier, respondent owed a higher degree of diligence. She argues that even if both parties were negligent, respondent's negligence was gross, making the principle of pari delicto inapplicable. Petitioner also argues that the "Jewels of Europe" tour was indivisible and refundable, and that she should have been granted consequential damages for breach of contract of carriage. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent, a travel agency, is considered a common carrier bound to exercise extraordinary diligence. Whether respondent was negligent in its contractual obligation to petitioner. Whether petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence, and if so, to what extent. Whether petitioner is entitled to a refund for the "Jewels of Europe" tour. Whether petitioner is liable for the balance of the "British Pageant" tour.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent P12,901.00 representing the balance of the "British Pageant" package tour, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent is a common carrier and the standard of diligence required: The Supreme Court held that respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc., as a travel agency, is not a common carrier. A common carrier is defined as a person or entity engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods for compensation, offering their services to the public. Respondent's business was to arrange and facilitate bookings, ticketing, and accommodations for tours, not to transport passengers. Therefore, respondent was not bound by law to observe extraordinary diligence, as required of common carriers under Article 1755 of the Civil Code. Instead, its obligation was governed by the standard of care of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, which requires reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed in a similar situation. On the alleged negligence of respondent: The Court found that the RTC erred in concluding that respondent's employee, Meriam Menor, was negligent. The RTC relied on petitioner's uncorroborated testimony and invoked a presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, as Menor was not presented as a witness. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Menor was already working in France at the time, making her testimony physically impossible to secure. Furthermore, the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court would not apply because Menor was petitioner's niece as well, meaning both parties had the opportunity to obtain her testimony. The Court found that respondent exercised due diligence by clearly indicating the departure date and time on the plane ticket and delivering the travel documents two days in advance, fulfilling its obligations under the contract. On petitioner's alleged negligence and contributory negligence: The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that petitioner was more negligent than respondent. The Court emphasized that petitioner, being a lawyer and a well-traveled person, should have exercised ordinary care by reading her travel documents, particularly the plane ticket, to verify the departure date and time. Relying solely on a verbal representation from an employee, even if that employee was her niece, was insufficient. The Court found that petitioner's failure to verify the details on the ticket was the proximate cause of her missing the flight, and thus, she could not recover damages. On the refund for the "Jewels of Europe" tour: Given that respondent was not found to be negligent and petitioner was deemed more negligent, the Court upheld the CA's ruling that petitioner forfeited her right to the "Jewels of Europe" tour. The respondent's explanation that the payment was already remitted to its principal and that industry practice disallows refunds for missed tours was also considered. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to a refund for the unavailed tour. On the liability for the "British Pageant" tour: The Court affirmed the CA's decision that petitioner was liable for the balance of the "British Pageant" tour package. The Court found that this tour was independently procured by petitioner after missing her original flight and was not merely a substitute for the "Jewels of Europe" tour. The partial payment was allowed due to Menor's employment with the agency, but the balance remained due.
Main Doctrine
A travel agency is not a common carrier and is therefore not bound to observe extraordinary diligence; it is only required to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in performing its obligations under a contract for services.