MODULE 1 Introduction to Tourism Law

Definition of Law
The Philippine legal system mainly accepts the definition of Law according to the Spanish
jurist Sanchez Roman. He made a distinction in defining law: the general sense and the
specific sense. In the general sense (derecho), law is defined as the science of moral laws
based on the rational nature of man which governs his free activity for the realization of
his individual and social ends and as such is demandable and reciprocal. On the other
hand, In a more specific sense (ley), law is defined as a rule of conduct. These rules of
conduct are just and obligatory. Laws are promulgated by a legitimate authority in the
Philippine setting it is the Legislature. In a more specific sense Laws are of common
observance and benefit.

Characteristics of Law
- It is a Rule of Conduct
It provides an order on how people must conduct themselves, to avoid chaos or
disorder
- It is Just and Obligatory
The application of the law must be for similarly situated individuals, penalties that
shall be imposed must be proportionate to the violations, it is obligatory because the
same is enforced and is mandatory and not suggestive.
- It is promulgated by a Legitimate Authority
For the law to be valid it must be created and approved by a legitimate authority. In
the Philippines the power to enact laws are vested in the Legislative branch of the
government.
- It is for the Common Observance and Benefits
Essentially laws are created to be observed and to benefit the people. Based on the
Latin Maxim “Salus Populi est Suprema Lex” which basically means “The welfare
of the people is the Supreme Law”. No law shall be passed to endanger the people.

The Three Branches of Government

- Executive Branch
The power to enforce or implement the law enacted by Congress
- Legislative Branch
The power to enact laws. Composed of the Senate (Upper House) and House of
Representatives (Lower House). Statute is the law passed by Congress.
- Judicial Branch
 It has the power to interpret the laws and duty to settle actual controversy or
alleged violations of any statute or law, it also determine if there is abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The Three Inherent Powers of the State

- Police Power
It is the power of the State to regulate laws and properties for the general welfare of
the people.
- Power of Eminent Domain
The power to acquire private property upon payment of just compensation, to
further governmental function.
- Power of Taxation
The power of the Government to collect a portion of the revenue of people or entity
doing business or earning in the Philippines.

MODULE 2 Constitutional Provisions Relative to Tourism Related Establishments

(TREs)

Essence of Right to privacy

The Essence of the “Right to Privacy” is simply put as the “Right to be left Alone”
Illustration: A and B checked in at ABC Hotel, not knowing that C, the spouse of A, were
tracking them. C demanded to know the room number of A and B.
The front desk officer did not provided the details C wants.
Was the front desk officer correct in withholding the information?
Yes, the front desk officer is correct. Without a lawful order from the court, or when
public safety and order does not require divulgence of information, C cannot demand to
be provided the information.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed
by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
Exception of Right to Privacy
Below are the exception to the general rule:
1. Interest of national security
2. Interest of public safety
3. Interest of public health

RA 4200 Anti-Wire Tapping Act

- Provides that no recording shall be done without the consent of all parties involved
to any privately spoken words, or tap any wire or cable, or by any other means
overhear secretly, intercept or records such communication.
- Government and any of it agencies as well as private individuals may be. sued for
violation of this law
- Government can wiretap a private conversation upon prior written order of the
court, intercepting or recording private conversations believed to be for the purpose
of committing the following:
1. Treason
2. Espionage 8. Inciting to Rebellion
3. Provoking war 9. Sedition
4. Disloyalty in case of war 10. Conspiracy to commit sedition
5. Piracy, mutiny on high seas 11. Inciting to sedition
6. Rebellion 12. Kidnapping
7. Conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion

RA 9995 Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

This special law makes it illegal to do the following:
a. Take photo of parties engage in sexual activities
b. Take videos of parties engage in sexual activities
c. Capture an image of private areas of any person (e.g. naked bodies, or undergarment
clad genitals, pubic area, female breast) Without the consent of party or parties involved
and under the circumstances in which the person/s has a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
d. Copy or reproduce such photo or video recording with or without consideration shall
likewise be prohibited even if the parties involved consents to reproduce the same.
e. Selling of sex video and above-mentioned photos shall also be prohibited
f. Publishing, broadcasting, uploading in the in the internet, exhibitor show the photos or
video recordings, even thru mobile phones and other multimedia platform is prohibited
even if the person/s involved in the same consents.

Right to Travel
- The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
- The relevant part of this provision would be the Right to Travel.
- As a general rule the “Right to Travel” shall not be impaired.

MODULE 3 Law on Obligations and Contracts

Definition of obligation
Under Article 1156 of the Civil Code of the Philippines “An obligation is a juridical
necessity to give, to do, or not to do” Thus under the law an obligation may be
1. To give something
2. To do something
3. Or to not do something

Sources of Obligation Sources of Damages

- Obligations arising from law 1. Fraud
- Obligations arising from contracts 2. 2. Negligence
- Obligations arising from quasi- 3. 3. Delay
contract 4. 4. Contravention of the tenor of the
- Obligations arising from quasi- obligation
delict
Kinds of Negligence Kinds of Obligations
- Due diligence of a good father of the - Civil Obligation
family - Natural Obligation
- Utmost diligence or extraordinary - Moral Obligation
diligence

Modes of Extinguishing Obligation 5. Compensation

6. Novation
1. By payment or performance
7. Annulment
2. Loss of the thing due (specific thing)
8. Rescission
3. Condonation
9. Fulfillment of resolutory condition
4. Merger - rights of creditor &
debtor 10.Prescription

Requisites of a Contract
1. A party is injured
2. Injury is due to the negligence or fault of another
3. Connection between the fault or negligence of the one party and the injury incurred by
the other party
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties

Formalities of a contract
As a general rule, a contract shall be obligatory in any form, thus it can be made orally
and in writing as long as the three essential requisites are present:
1. Consent of the contracting parties;
2. Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
Note: Object may be a:
a. thing,
 b. right, or
c. service
3. Cause of the obligation which is established
Exception to the above-mentioned general rule are as follows:
1. When the law so provides that the contract must be in a particular form (eg in writing
or written and notarized)
2. When the law requires to be proved in writing its terms and conditions (like a
memorandum)

Stages of a Contract
1. Negotiation stage
2. Perfection of the contract (when all essential elements had been agreed upon)
3. The parties shall determine the acceptable terms and conditions
4. Consummation / Termination – contract ends because parties have fulfilled their
respective obligation

Characteristics of a Contract Effects of Defective Contract

- Mutuality of contract - Rescissible Contracts
- Autonomy Contract - Viodable Contracts
- Obligatory Force - Unenforceable Contract
- Relativity Contract - Void and Inexistent Contract

MODULE 4 Tourism and Hospitality as a Trade

Forms of Business Organization

- Sole Proprietorship
- Advantages
o Solely enjoys profit derived from business activities
o Easier to decide the direction of the business or easy to stop its operation
 o Relatively requires minimal capitalization
o Filing of taxes much simple than a corporation
- Disadvantages
o Solely liable to all debts and obligations of the business
o Burdensome because all decisions and undertakings are to be carried
out by the proprietor alone.
o Limited resources for capitalization
o Business shall be dissolved upon the death, illness, condition or the will of
the proprietor.

- Partnership
- Advantages
o Can be formed by mere consent of the parties
o Decisions are easier reached
o More sources of capital
- Disadvantages
o The partners are liable for the actions and inactions of their co-partners
o Easier to dissolve
o If the partnership is unableto pay the debts, the personal assets of the general
partners can be secured by the creditor.
o Internal conflicts can occur making it difficult to ascertain direction of the
business
o Personal interests of one or more partners may take precedent over the
interest of the business as a whole

- Corporation
- Advantages
o It has strong legal personality;
o Free transferability of shares;
o Centralized Management (there is a board);
o Limited liabilityof shareholders (only up to their contribution); and
o It has perpetual existence unless its articles of incorporation provides
otherwise.
- Disadvantages
o The process of forming corporation is complicated;
o It is always subject to the control and regulation of the government; and
o A corporation cannot engage in business other than the business specified in
the articles of incorporation.
 o Minority stock holders generally have no say in the operation of the
corporation.

Obligations of a Sole Proprietor
1.To secure all necessary business permits
and licenses
2.To register the business name with DTI
3.To pay appropriate taxes as provided
for by the BIR
4.To pay all the debts and perform all
obligations of the business
Attributes of a Corporation
1.It is an artificial being;
2.It is created by operation of law;
3.It has a right of succession; and
4.It has expressed and implied powers.

Doctrine of Corporate Entity

A corporation from the moment it acquires juridical personality becomes separate
and distinct person from the person/s who created it. This is called the doctrine of
corporate entity. Thus, as a separate entity, distinct from its directors, officers and
shareholders, it can acquire pieces of property under its own name, in the same manner
any pieces of property or assets that its directors, officers and shareholders shall
acquire shall not be deemed as the of the corporation.

Doctrine of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Entity

It is the exception to the Doctrine of Corporate Entity. When corporation is used as a way
to defraud or do an illegal act, or made as an instrument for evading a legal obligation, or
utilizing the corporate entity to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; or when
it merely serves as an alter ego of a person who has full control of its funds, the corporate
entity that separates the board, officers or stock holders of the corporation shall be
pierced, thus, making the directors, officers, and shareholders liable together with the
corporation.

One Person Corporation (OPC)

A One Person Corporation as the name indicates only has one stock holder. Entities that
can form a One Person Corporation are as follows:
1.Natural Person
2.Trust
3.Estate
A one person corporation to inform the public of its status must indicate “OPC” after the
name
Note: Under the old corporation code of the Philippines a corporation must have at least 5
not more than 15 incorporators, except for corporation sole which is intended to organize
the affairs of the church.

Three Modes of Dissolution of Corporation

1.Voluntary Dissolution.
2.Involuntary Dissolution.
3.Expiration or shortening of term

MODULE 5 Labor Laws

Kinds of Employee
1.Regular Employee
2.Casual Employee
3.Project Employee
4.Seasonal Employee
5.Fixed-Period Employee
6.Probationary Employee

Duration of probationary employment

- As a general rule a probationary employment shall have a duration of 6 months.
- Exceptions to the general rule are as follows:
a. When company policy adheres to a different probationary period, clearly
indicated in the employment contract and the person agrees to the same
b. When by the nature of the work requires a different probationary period.
Causes of termination of an employee
There are two causes that shall lawfully sever employer-employee relationship, applicable
to rank and file employees these are:
1.Just Causes
2.Authorize Causes
Note:
Managerial employees’ employment can be terminated when management losses trust and
confidence to any of its managers

Just Causes
1.Serious Misconduct / Insubordination
2.Gross and habitual neglect by the employees of his duties
3.Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust bestowed in him by the employer or
its duly authorized representative
4.Commission of a crime by the employee against the person of his employer, any of his
immediate family, or his duly authorized representatives and
5.Other analogous causes

Normal hours of work

- Overtime Work
- Night Shift Differential Pay (NSDP)
- Holiday Pay

Republic Act 7877 also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
The law states that sexual harassment is unlawful in the workplace, academic, and
training environment.

Who may be held liable under RA 7877

Person who has moral ascendancy over the person.
e.g. Immediate Supervisor
Department Manager
HR Manager
Employer

CASES

CITY OF MANILA V. JUDGE PERFECTO LAGUIO

FACTS:
Private respondent Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC) is a corporation
engaged in the business of operating hotels, motels, hostels and lodging houses. It built and
opened Victoria Court in Malate which was licensed as a motel although duly accredited
with the DOT as a hotel. On 28 June 1993, MTDC filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief
with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order7
with the lower court impleading as defendants, herein petitioners City of Manila, Hon.
Alfredo S. Lim (Lim), Hon. Joselito L. Atienza, and the members of the City Council of
Manila (City Council). MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels
and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional.
Enacted by the City Council and approved by petitioner City Mayor, the said Ordinance
is entitled–
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF
BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA-MALATE
AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. Judge Laguio rendered the assailed Decision (in favour of
respondent).
On 11 January 1995, petitioners filed the present Petition, alleging that the following
errors were committed by the lower court in its ruling:
(1) It erred in concluding that the subject ordinance is ultra vires, or otherwise, unfair,
unreasonable and oppressive exercise of police power; (2) It erred in holding that the
questioned Ordinance contravenes P.D. 499 which allows operators of all kinds of
commercial establishments, except those specified therein; and (3) It erred in declaring
the Ordinance void and unconstitutional.

ISSUE:
WON the ordinance is unconstitutional.

HELD:
The Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the lower court did not err in declaring the
Ordinance, as it did, ultra vires and therefore null and void. The tests of a valid ordinance
are well established. A long line of decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it
must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and
must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the
following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4)
must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public
policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. The Ordinance was passed by the City Council
in the exercise of its police power, an enactment of the City Council acting as agent of
Congress. This delegated police power is found in Section 16 of the LGC, known as the
general welfare clause. The inquiry in this Petition is concerned with the validity of the
exercise of such delegated power.

WHITE LIGHT CORP V. CITY OF MANILA

FACTS:
Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed an Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in
hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of
Manila.
The City claims that it is a legitimate exercise of police power.
Herein petitioners, assails the validity and constitutionality of the ordinance arguing that
it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of
police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business.
The RTC declared the ordinance null and void, thus, the City of Manila elevated the case
to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the RTC ruling.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinance is valid.

RULING:
The court ruled in the negative. The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long
line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it
must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and
pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following
substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2)
must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not
prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy;
and (6) must not be unreasonable.

AIR FRANCE V. CARRASCO

FACTS:
On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine
Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a “first class” round trip airplane ticket from Manila to
Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in “first class”, but at Bangkok, the
Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the “first class” seat that he
was occupying because there was a “white man”, who, the Manager alleged, had a “better
right” to the seat. When asked to vacate his “first class” seat, the plaintiff, as was to be
expected, refused, and told defendant’s Manager that his seat would be taken over his
dead body; a commotion ensued, and they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified
Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man” and plaintiff reluctantly gave his “first
class” seat in the plane.

ISSUE:
Whether there is a breach of contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso that
would hold Air France liable for damages.
RULING:
Yes. Petitioner’s contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of
Carrascoso’s action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a
violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier — a case of quasi-delict. Damages are
proper.
CRISOSTOMO V. CA & CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS
Petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of respondent Caravan Travel and
Tours International, Inc. to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and
accommodation in a tour dubbed "Jewels of Europe".
Petitioner went to NAIA... to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to
Hongkong. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take
had already departed the... previous day.
Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour - the "British Pageant"... petitioner
was asked anew to pay Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from
respondent the reimbursement of P61,421.70, representing the difference between the sum
she paid for "Jewels of Europe" and the amount she owed respondent for the "British
Pageant" tour. Despite several demands, respondent. Company refused to reimburse the
amount, contending that the same was non-refundable.

ISSUES:
Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a
common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight schedule.

RULING:
Petitioner's contention has no merit.
Respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or
goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Respondent did not
undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another. since its covenant with its
customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondent's services as
a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as
booking customers for tours.
While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent
company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is a common carrier. At most,
respondent acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom petitioner ultimately
contracted for... her carriage to Europe. Respondent's obligation to petitioner in this
regard was simply to see to it that petitioner was properly booked with the airline for the
appointed date and time. Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained
directly to the... airline.

LOPEZ V. PAN AMERICA AIRWAYS

FACTS:
August 1, 1960: Pan American Employees Association staged a strike so Pan Am forced
them to take a leave of absence without pay on February 22, 1961 to February 23, 1961
Court a quo: affected them financially and economically, it ordered Pan America to pay
them their two days salaries
CA: affirmed.

ISSUES:
W/N the employees should be awarded back wages.

HELD:
NO. AFFIRMED in so far as it declares petitioner Pan American World Airways, Inc. not
guilty of unfair labor practice, but IS REVERSED in so far as it orders said petitioner to
pay the members of the respondent labor union, Pan American Employees Association,
their wages or salaries for February 22 and 23, 1961 when they were made by the
petitioner to go on furlough. The petitioner is absolved from paying the said back wages.
No pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC. ELLEN JOHANNE HARPER,

JONATHAN HARPER, ETAL.
FACTS:
In the first week of November 1999, Christian Harper came to Manila on a business trip.
He checked in at the Shangri-La Hotel. In the early morning of that date, however, he was
murdered inside his hotel room by an unidentified malefactors.
Due to a call from the bank of Christian Harper for suspicious usage of his credit card.
Harper’s family in Norway must tried to called him at his hotel room to inform him about
the attempt to use his American Express card. Not getting any response from the room,
his family requested the Duty Manager of the Shangri-La Hotel, to check on Harper’s
room. He and a security personnel went to the Room and were shocked to discover
Harper’s lifeless body on the bed.
On August 30, 2002, respondents commenced this suit in the RTC to recover various
damages from petitioner for damages. The RTC rendered judgment finding the defendant
hotel to be remiss in its duties and thus liable for the death of Christian Harper.
Petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the judgment of the RTC. Hence this case.

ISSUES:
Whether the Petitioner was liable due to its own negligence for the death of Harper?

HELD:
The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or omission of the tortfeasor with a
perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person who is similarly situated. The test, as
applied to the extant case, is whether or not defendant-appellant, under the attendant
circumstances, used that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary reasonable
person would have used in the same situation.

ZULUETA V. PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS

FACTS:
Mr. Zulueta and his wife and child boarded a flight of Pan Am from Wake Island to the
Phil. Mr. Zulueta, however, had to relieve himself and thus looked for a secluded place in
the beach. As a result, he was delayed in boarding for some 20 or 30 minutes. While Mr.
Zulueta was reaching the ramp, the captain of the plane demonstrated an
intemperate and arrogant tone thereby impelling Mr. Zulueta to answer back. Thus,
Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded. The airport manager of then sent Mr. Zulueta a letter stating
that his stay in Wake Island would be for a minimum of one week during which he would
be charged $13.30 per day.

ISSUES:
WON Pan Am should be held liable.

HELD:
Yes. Mr. Zulueta was off-loaded to retaliate and punish him for the embarrassment and
loss of face thus suffered by defendant’s agent. The Zuluetas had a contract of carriage
with the defendant, as a common carrier, pursuant to which the latter was bound, for a
substantial monetary consideration paid by the former, not merely to transport them to
Manila, but, also, to do so with “extraordinary diligence” or “utmost diligence.” The
responsibility of the common carrier, under said contract, as regards the
passenger’s safety, is of such a nature, affecting as it does public interest, that it
“cannot be dispensed with” or even “lessenedby stipulation, by the posting of notices, by
statements on tickets, or otherwise.”