Parties of the case

Petitioner – Estela Crisostomo

Respondent – Caravan Travel and Tours Int’l Inc.

Facts:

Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. to
arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a tour dubbed "Jewels of
Europe".

Pursuant to said contract, the travel documents and plane tickets were delivered to Estela who in
turn gave the full payment for the package tour.

Without checking her travel documents Estela went to NAIA to take the flight for the first leg of
her journey from Manila to Hong Kong. To her dismay, she discovered that the flight she was
supposed to take had already departed the previous day.

She thus called up Menor to complain. Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon Estela to take
another tour - the "British Pageant". Estela was asked anew to pay

Upon Estela’s return from Europe, she demanded reimbursement of the difference between the
sum she paid for "Jewels of Europe" and the amount she owed for the "British Pageant" tour.
Despite several demands, the company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the
same was non-refundable.

Estela filed a complaint against the travel agency for breach of contract of carriage and damages
alleging that her failure to join Jewels of Europe was due to company’s fault since it did not
clearly indicate the departure date on the plane, failing to observe the standard of care required
of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight schedule.

For its part, respondent company, denied responsibility for petitioner’s failure to join the first
tour, insisting that petitioner was informed of the correct departure date, which was clearly and
legibly printed on the plane ticket. The travel documents were given to petitioner two days
ahead of the scheduled trip. Respondent further contend that petitioner had only herself to
blame for missing the flight, as she did not bother to read or confirm her flight schedule as
printed on the ticket.

Issues:

Whether or not Caravan Travel & Tours International Inc. is negligent in the fulfilment of its
obligation to Estela thus granting to her the consequential damages due her as a result of
breach of contract of carriage.

Ruling:
The SC held that the company did not commit any contractual breach. – affirmed CA

The company is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or
goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. It did not undertake to transport
Estela from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make travel
arrangements in their behalf.

Caravan travel and tour acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom Estela ultimately
contracted for her carriage to Europe. Its obligation to Estela was simply to see to it that she was
properly booked with the airline for the appointed date and time. Her transport to the place of
destination , pertained directly to the airline.

The object of Estela’s contractual relation with the travel agency is the latter’s service of
arranging and facilitating booking, ticketing and accommodation in the package tour. In
contrast, the object of a contract of carriage is the transportation of passengers or goods. It is in
this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one for services and
not one of carriage.

Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care
required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.
The evidence shows that the travel agency exercised due diligence in performing its obligations
under the contract and followed standard procedure in rendering its services to Estela. The travel
documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise delivered to
to Estela two days prior to the trip. The travel agency also properly booked Estela for the tour,
prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane tickets. The arranged the hotel
accommodation as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its
avowed undertaking hence the company performed its duty diligently and did not commit any
contractual breach, Estela cannot recover and must bear her own damage.

Contract of carriage or transporatation is one whereby a certain person or association of

persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to another for
a fixed price.  A common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code as persons,
corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air, for compensation, offering their services to
the public.

Trial court – Held that Caravan travel and Agency was negligent in erroneously advising Estela
of her departure date through its employee, Menor. However, Estela should have verified exact
date and time of her departure by looking at her ticket and should have not relied on verbal
representation. The trial declared that Estela was guilty of contributory negligence and
according deducted 10% from the amount being claimed as refund
Court of appeals – likewise found both parties to be at fault. However, the appellate court held
that Estela is more negligent than Caravan travel because as a lawyer and well-traveled person,
she should have known better than to simply rely on what was told to her. This being so, she is
not entitled to any form of damages. Estela, also forfeited her right to the "Jewels of Europe"
tour and must therefore pay respondent the balance of the price for the "British Pageant" tour.

4. LRTA vs. Navidad, Rule on contract

Duty – to transfer the passengers/items safely from point of origin safely

1. The death or injury is caused by the employee

2. Or by a passenger assaulted a passenger resulting to death, the employee could have
been prevented.

Contract not quasi Delict –

7. Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. vs. CA

Extra ordinary diligence – The duty of the bank is to take care the account of their client

Respondeat Superior –

Quasi Delict - Negligence, relative and comparative, the degree of negligence depends on
the degree of the diligence require

Concept of negligence – Lack of foresight, foresee the event but not act accordingly

Comparative – minor or adult cannot apply the same degree of diligence

Degree of Diligence

Ordinary negligence - if you fail to exercise to ordinary negligence

Gross Negligence – Complete absence of diligence

Slight negligence

Extra Ordinary diligence – Electric, Common Carriers

Test in determining the existence of negligence. Did the defendant performed

Personal judgment, abstract speculation has no

Mere intoxication is not negligence as long as characterized by proper degree of care. Pero
pag nag drive bawal kasi there is a law punishing it.

If the law not mentioned – should follow the degree of a good father of a family, bonus
pater familias.

Can the party stipulate below ordinary diligence – Yes not result to fraud, as long as not
amount to gross negligence.

Waiver of future negligence is allowed

Waiver of future fraud not allowed

Wanton disregard –

Element of quasi delict

1. Act or omission being fault or negligence

2. The act or omission there mus
3. Proximate cause – natural, unbroken, continuous which result of injury will not occur, it is
not a direct cause, the cause of the cause of the evil caused.
4. No pre existing contractual relationship – but it has been modified by the court
Concurrent of proximate cause – Joint tortfeasors

Concurrent of efficient causes – unbroken by any efficient intervening cause

Efficient intervening cause – causal relationship between the injury and the negligent act.

Test of causation

1. In fact test – what part of the negligent injury

2. Substantial factor test-subtantial in injury
3. If the defendant conduct if the event is occur without the defendant
4. Forsee but not act responsibly, guilty of

Dty to establish negligence. Who has the burden – the plaintif

To prove the existence of negligent act-Art. 2184, Art. 2185, Art. 2188

Cannot be applied to non motor vehicle

Picart Vs. Smith

Doctrine of last clear chance – There must be appreciable lapse of time, Antecedent negligent,
subsequent negligent on the part of the defendant. Emergency rule na applicable ngayon

Emergency rule. – Absence of time to contemplate, no time to choose a better option.