STI COLLEGE – GEN.SANTOS, INC.

J. Catolico Sr. Avenue, Lagao, General Santos City

In Partial Fulfillment Presented to the

Tourism and Hospitality Department (THM)
Under the Bachelor of Science in Tourism and Management

Legal Aspects in Tourism and Hospitality

Presented to the Hospitality Management (HM) Department

Under The Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management

Presented by
BALASBAS, JUSTINE DOMINIQUE
CABESAS, KAREN, D.
MAGHARI, LOUISE
MALUNES, LUZELM FAYE T.
PLAZA, HANNAH MARIE
SAYSON, KATE

Presented to:
ATTY. MONICA THEA FLORES
ACTIVITY 1:
Instructions:
1. Working with your partner, read, analyze, and respond appropriately to the following case.

Case: On November 6, 1968, Philippine Airlines (PAL’s) Fokker “Friendship” PIC-536 left
Mactan City for the City of Manila. After the plane had taken off, Florencio O. Villarin, a
Senior NBI Agent who was also a passenger of the said plane, noticed a certain “Zaldy,” a
suspect in the killing of Judge Valdez, seated at the front seat near the door leading to the
cockpit of the plane. Zaldy had used the name “Cardente” in his plane ticket and had three
(3) companions on board the plane. Villarin then scribbled a note addressed to the pilot of
the plane requesting the latter to contact NBI duty agents in Manila for the said agents to
ask the Director of the NBI to send about six (6) NBI agents to meet the plane because the
suspect in the killing of Judge Valdes was on board the plane. The said note was handed by
Villarin to the stewardess, who in turn gave the same to the pilot. After receiving the note,
which was about 15 minutes after takeoff, the pilot of the plane came out of the cockpit and
sat beside Villarin at the rear portion of the plane and explained that he could not send the
message because it would be heard by all ground aircraft stations. Villarin, however, told the
pilot of the danger of the commission of violent acts onboard the plane by the notorious
Zaldy and his three (3) companions. While the pilot and Villarin were talking, Zaldy and one
(1) of his companions walked to the rear and stood behind them. The pilot then stood up
and went back to the cockpit. Zaldy and his companions returned to their seats. Soon
thereafter, an exchange of gunshots ensued between Villarin and Zaldy and the latter’s
companions. Zaldy announced to the passengers and the pilots in the cockpit that it was a
hijack. The hijackers divested the passengers of their belongings. Upon landing at the Manila
International Airport, Zaldy and his three (3) companions succeeded in escaping.
Norberto Quisumbing Sr., one of the passengers of the plane, filed an action against
Philippine Airlines to recover the value of jewelry, other valuables, and money taken from
him by four (4) armed robbers on board the latter’s airplane while on a flight Mactan City to
Manila, as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation.
Such loss is a result of the breach of PAL’s contractual obligation to carry him and his
belongings and effects to Manila without loss or damage and constitutes a serious
dereliction of PAL’s legal duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
same. In its defense, Philippine Airlines alleges that the robbery during the flight and after
the aircraft was forcibly landed at the Manila Airport did indeed constitute force majeure.

Question: Is the incident onboard the airplane Flight Fokker “Friendship” PIC-536 considered
force majeure, which exempts Philippine Airlines from liability? Support your answer.

ANSWER:

Yes, there is a claim that the events aboard Flight Fokker "Friendship" PIC-536 were
caused by a force majeure event. Philippine Airlines is not liable because Article 1163 states
that anyone who has a duty to give something is also obligated to care for it with the
diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the parties' agreement stipulates a
different standard of care. In other words, because they operate public transportation, they
are still required to fulfill their obligations to deliver passengers safely to their destinations
even in the event that the evidence is insufficient, that Philippine Airlines has not been
dedicated, or more specifically has not followed the rules that apply or generally recognized
and followed protocols to prevent hijacking; additionally, considering the circumstances of
the case, certain acts that Mr. Noberto Quisimbing Sr. has pointed out as allegedly indicative
of negligence were not in fact careless.
 ACTIVITY 2:

I. Tourism And Hospitality-Related Contract

STI Hotel
FULL SERVICE CATERING CONTRACT

This Catering Service Contract (the “Contract”) is entered into on __________, 20XX
between STI Hotel and_______________(“Caterer”) for the purpose of allowing Caterer to
provide catered foodservice on the Hotel’s property from _________ through _________
(the “Term”) The length of this contract is six months.

1. Caterer Information.
Name: Kate Marie Sayson
Address: San Isidro, GSC

Telephone Number: 552-4221

Tax Identification Number: XXX-XX-XXXX

2. Inclusion on the hotel’s Approved Catering List. By the execution and delivery of this
Contract and Caterer’s compliance with the terms and conditions as outlined in
Attachment A, Caterer will be included on the hotel’s list of approved caterers
authorized to provide catering services at hotel functions on the hotel’s campus. This
Contract sets forth the terms and conditions applicable to Caterer’s provision of its
services and compliance with this Contract is a requirement for Caterer to remain in
good standing as a hotel approved caterer. Prior to inclusion on the hotel’s list of
approved caterers, Caterer must provide a signed copy of this Agreement and a
certificate of liability insurance. The hotel may terminate a Catering Agreement and
remove a caterer from the approved list at any time and for any reason, or no reason at
all.
3. Pricing. STI Hotel pricing shall be based on the Caterer’s published menu.
4. Payment. The hotel’s preferred payment methods are STI Hotel’s ProCard (credit card),
ACH, or a check issued net thirty days from receipt of invoice.
5. Discount. A 5% discount will be given for the food portion of full service catered events.
6. Tax Exempt Status. STI Hotel is exempt from Federal Excise Tax and Commonwealth of
Philippines Sales Tax if the meals are being used in the conduct of our exempt enterprise.
The tax-exempt number of the hotel is #04-2103637.
7. Terms and Conditions. See Attachment A.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract on the dates set forth below
in accordance with the terms attached.

ON BEHALF OF STI Hotel ON BEHALF OF CATERER

By: Louise Maghari By: Kate Marie Sayson
Name: Justine Dominique V. Balasbas Name: Luzhelm Faye Malunes
Title: Head Manager Title: Head Chef
Date: Date:
 ATTACHMENT A
TO STI Hotel CONTRACT
FULL SERVICE CATERING TERMS AND CONDITIONS

These Catering Service Terms and Conditions consist of Articles 1 thru 21, inclusive,
which expressly state the terms agreed between the parties and all attachments
expressly made a part hereof (“the Contract”).

1. Term. This is a Contract beginning on __________ and ending on __________.

2. Termination. This contract may be terminated by STI Hotel or Caterer for any reason.

3. Insurance. Caterer is responsible for providing a current up to date copy of its

Certificate of Insurance to the STI Hotel Purchasing Department. Certificates can be sent
to jcheng2@wellesley.edu or mailed to:

STI Hotel
Purchasing Department
106 Central Street
Wellesley, MA 02481

STI Hotel should be named as the certificate holder. The following minimum insurance
standards shall apply.

Minimum Insurance Requirements:

a. General Liability in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence,

$2,000,000 aggregate, and include bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage

b. Liquor Liability (if alcohol is to be served) in an amount not less than $1,000,000
per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate, including liquor legal liability

c. Automobile Liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for
injuries, including accidental death, to any one person, and subject to the same
minimum for each person, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 for each
accident and property damage insurance in an amount of not less than
$1,000,000

d. Workers’ Compensation Insurance that meets Philippines Statutory

Requirements and Employers Liability of $100,000 bodily injury each accident,
disease and aggregate. The policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of
subrogation for all work performed by Caterer, its employees, agents and
subcontractors in favor of STI Hotel.

e. Amendatory Endorsement to the Liability Policies above must also contain the
following additional insured language:

i. “STI Hotel and each of their trustees, employees, officers, agents, related
entities and duly authorized volunteers individually and collectively are
named additional insured.”
 f. Carrier Financial Strength: All insurance carriers must meet a minimum financial
rating of A.M. Best’s
“A- / IX”.

g. Cancellation or Notice of Non-Renewal: All insurance carriers must provide a

minimum notice of
cancellation or non-renewal to the Additional Insured of no less than 30 days.

4. Events Serving Alcohol.

a. Required Permits, Licenses, Registrations: For services including alcohol, Caterer

warrants, represents, and agrees that Caterer and all individuals assigned to
provide Services will obtain and maintain, at Caterer’s own cost, any and all
approvals, licenses, filings, registrations and permits required by Philippines
state and any other applicable authority legal requirements.

b. Certified Training: Caterer will require that all employees serving alcoholic
beverages in completion of the Services have prior TIPS certified alcohol server
training and provide proof of training at each function.

5. Labeling Requirement. In an effort to enhance the safety of the STI Hotel community
and our guests, all Full Service Caterers serving food at hotel events on campus must
label all food items with known allergen-containing ingredients. Food selections must
have proper identification cards (12pt font or larger) displaying the name of the dish and
listing any ingredients of known allergens such as milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (such as
almonds, cashews or walnuts), seafood, soy and wheat.

6. Waiver and Release of Liability. Full Service Caterer releases and agrees to fully hold
harmless and indemnify, to the fullest extent permitted by law, STI Hotel, its trustees,
officers, employees, students, and agents from any and all claims or liabilities incident to
or arising out of the Full Service Caterer’s involvement in any way in preparing, catering
and providing food services on the STI Hotel campus, or for a STI Hotel sponsored event
off campus.

7. Permits. The Caterer shall, without additional expense to STI Hotel, be responsible for
obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State,
and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work.
The Caterer shall also be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur
as a result of the Caterer's fault or negligence and shall indemnify and hold STI Hotel
harmless from and against all damages and liability which may arise out of failure of
Caterer to secure and pay for any such licenses or permits or to comply fully with any
and all applicable Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations.

8. Subcontractors. When the Caterer wishes to use, and STI Hotel approves, a
subcontractor for any aspect of the provision of the Services, Caterer shall require the
Subcontractor to agree to terms substantially similar to those included herein, especially
those related to insurance and indemnification.
9. Use of STI Hotel Name. The Caterer will not use the STI Hotel name, or any acronym
thereof, without STI Hotel’s prior written approval.

10. Excusable Delay. In the event of a delay caused by inclement weather, fire, flood, strike
or other labor dispute, acts of God, acts of Governmental officials or agencies, or any
other cause beyond the control of the Caterer, the Caterer’s performance is excused
hereunder for the periods of time attributable to such a delay, which may extend
beyond the time lost due to one or more of the causes mentioned above.

11. Notice. Any notice or communication required by this Contract shall be in writing and
shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, or sent by overnight
mail, or prepaid registered mail, or confirmed e-mail, addressed to the parties as set
forth in the Contract.

12. Status of Parties. The Caterer is an independent contractor. This Contract is not
intended to create, nor shall it be construed to be, a joint venture, association,
partnership, franchise, or other form of business relationship. The Caterer agrees to
fully cooperate with STI Hotel in its defense of the appropriateness of such status.
Neither party shall have, nor hold itself out as having, any right, power or authority to
assume, create, or incur any expenses, liability, or obligation on behalf of the other party,
except as expressly provided herein.

13. Third-Party Beneficiary. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Contract.

14. Assignment and Subcontracting. Except as to any payment due hereunder, this
Contract may not be assigned or subcontracted by the Caterer without prior written
approval of STI Hotel. In case such consent is given, it shall not relieve the Caterer from
any of the obligations of this Contract and any transferee or subcontractor shall be
considered the agent of the Caterer and, as between the parties hereto, the Caterer
shall be and remain liable as if no such transfer or subcontracting had been made.

15. Severability. If any provision of this Contract is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in
any respect, such provision shall be treated as severable, leaving the remaining
provisions unimpaired, provided that such does not materially prejudice either party in
their respective rights and obligations contained in the valid terms, covenants, or
conditions.

16. Non-Waiver. The failure of either party to require the performance of any of the terms
of this Contract or the waiver by either party of any default under this Contract shall not
prevent a subsequent enforcement of such term, nor be deemed a waiver of any
subsequent breach.

17. Modification of Contract. Changes to the Contract must be in writing and signed by
Caterer and STI Hotel.

18. Applicable Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Philippines. Any legal actions whether state or federal brought to enforce this Contract
shall be brought in the courts of Middlesex County in the Commonwealth of Philippines.
19. Authority. Both parties represent that each has the full authority to perform its
obligations under this Contract and that the person executing this Contract has the
authority to bind it.

20. Entire Contract. The Contract constitutes the entire agreement between STI Hotel and
Caterer with regard to all matters herein and may be amended in writing only and
signed by both parties.

21. Equal Opportunity Employer. Caterer hereby certifies that it is an Equal Employment
Opportunity employer and that it complies with the provisions set forth in Executive
Order 11246, as amended, and with all other applicable state and federal statutes and
regulations that prohibit discrimination in the workplace, including, but not limited to
Department of Labor regulations and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended. The
contract clauses set forth at 41 CFR sec. 60-1.4 (a) and (b), 41 CFR. 60-1.7,41 CFR sec. 60-
250.4 and 41 CFR sec. 60-741.4 hereby included and made a part of this agreement.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

II. Summary Of The Essential Elements Of The Contract

Parties Involved: STI Hotel and Caterer (Kate Marie Sayson).

Term: Six-month contract.
Inclusion on Approved Catering List: Caterer must comply with terms to remain on the list.
Pricing: Based on Caterer's published menu.
Payment: Preferred methods include ProCard, ACH, or check.
Discount: 5% off food portion for full-service events.
Tax Exempt Status: Hotel is exempt from certain taxes.
Termination: Either party can terminate the contract.
Insurance: Caterer must provide required insurance.
Alcohol Service: Caterer must have necessary permits and trained staff for alcohol service.
Labeling Requirement: Food must be labeled with allergen information.
Liability Waiver: Caterer indemnifies the hotel from any liabilities.
Permits: Caterer is responsible for obtaining necessary permits.
Subcontractors: Caterer must get approval for subcontractors.
Use of Hotel Name: Caterer needs written approval to use hotel's name.
Excusable Delay: Delays due to certain events are excusable.
Notice: All communication must be in writing.
Status of Parties: Caterer is an independent contractor.
Third-Party Beneficiary: No intended third-party beneficiaries.
Assignment and Subcontracting: Caterer can't assign or subcontract without approval.
Severability: Invalid provisions won't affect the rest of the contract.
Non-Waiver: Failure to enforce terms doesn't waive rights.
Modification: Changes must be in writing and signed by both parties.
Applicable Law: Governed by Philippine law.
Authority: Both parties represent full authority to perform obligations.
Entire Contract: The agreement cannot be amended unless in writing and signed by both
parties.
Equal Opportunity Employer: Caterer certifies compliance with employment regulations.
ACTIVITY 3:

Task Performance 1
Lost pieces of luggage are a common occurrence in airports. Human errors can happen.
Sometimes, luggage tags are removed or interchanged. In some cases, pieces of luggage are
transported to the wrong airports. These incidents can be traumatic to travelers who are
staying in their destination only for a few days. Thousands of luggage are lost every day,
especially in busy airports.

Instructions:
1. Work with your group and research on the company policies of two (2) airlines on
handling lost luggage, specifically on how they handle the following:

1. PHILIPPINE AIRLINE

 Damaged Suitcase

For the damaged suitcase or baggage if the company or if you noticed that your baggage was
damaged upon arrival, they will immediately approach you to the Baggage Assistance
Counter located at the arrival area and file a report. They shall record the details of the
damage to your baggage and you will be offered immediate assistance, as necessary. Please
note our liability for damaged baggage is based on our General Conditions of Carriage
and/or the Montreal Conventions, unless a higher value has been declared in advance, our
liability remains limited.

 Delayed arrival of suitcases

If your baggage or suitcases is delayed upon arriving Philippine airline will approach the
Baggage Assistance Counter located at the arrival area and file a report for your delayed
arrival of baggage or suitcase. The airline. will receive a reference number at the end of the
reporting process. You should keep this number in order to track the progress of the search
for your baggage. The airline will search your baggage using the airline shared system and
they will contact you immediately for any update. Then the company will approach you to
describe your delayed baggage in detail including its contents (i.e. clothing items, gadgets, or
any other item). A complete description is important in finding your baggage.

2. CEBU PACIFIC

 Damaged Suitcases

If the passenger having a damaged Suitcases or baggage the company immediately file a
Property Irregularity Report (PIR) while still at the airport premises of the arrival station, if
the baggage was damaged. Then if damaged is proven not to be caused by regular wear and
tear, the company will compensate based on the Philippine Air Passenger Bill of Rights or the
Montreal Convention.

 Delayed arrival of suitcases

Cebu pacific endeavors or will attempt to check baggage arrives at your destination. In case
of baggage didn't came or having delayed arrival the company will assist the passenger to
file a Property Irregularity Report within the premises of the arrival station, if baggage did
not arrive in the same flight as the passenger. CEB will provide Php2,000 compensations to
the passenger for every twenty-four (24) hours of delay. We will also provide a first need
compensation, if passenger is not a resident at the destination.

2. Assess which of the two (2) airlines have a better way of handling such cases.

 Cebu pacific have a better way of handling cases when it come in damaged suitcases
and delayed arrival of suitcases because the airline directly explain what will happen
step by step if you experience some damaged suitcases in their airline. They have a
baggage protect which is the insurance that offers compensation for the loss or damage
of baggage in transit.

 Also in handling cases like delayed arrival of your suitcases the company or airline will
immediately assist you to report that your baggage is still not arriving and as I say they
have a baggage protection or we can call it insurance for the baggage that offers
compensation that provide 2,000 to the passenger for every twenty-four (24) hours of
delay. It also covers loss of baggage up to 150.000 and damage to baggage up to 20,000
compensation.

3. Provide recommendations/solutions on how such cases of lost and damaged luggage can
be prevented.

Recommendations and Solutions (Damaged Luggage)

Here are some recommendations and solutions on how to prevent some cases like
damaged luggage. The airline should make sure that the luggage is sturdy, well-packed, and
securely fastened to survive the rigors or moist of air travel to prevent damaged luggage also
mishandled baggage reports must be filed as soon as possible.
ACTIVITY 4:

Facts:

By letter dated October 26, 2000, the complainant (spouses Dante Cruz and Leonora
Cruz) demanded compensation from the respondent (Sun Holidays Inc.) of at least
P4,000,000 for the death of their son Ruelito C. Cruz.
The respondent responded with a letter dated November 7, 2000, denying
responsibility for the incident and considering the accident to be unintentional.
As a gesture of consideration, it provided the petitioners with P10,000 even after
the petitioner signed the waiver.
Since the complainant rejected the respondent's offer, the Respondents, as a carrier,
was found to have been careless in allowing M/B Coco Beach III to sail, even there were
provisions of the storm warning issued by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and
Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) A complaint was filed accordingly.
It was observed as early as 5: am on September 11, 2000, by the Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA)

Main Issue:
Sun Holidays Inc. is a common carrier since they continue to sail with their clients
knowing that the weather is not good and it cause accident that lead to Death of the
spouses son.

Conclusion or ruling of the Court as to the main issue:

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, agreeing with Mr. and Mrs.
Cruz in their complaint against Sun Holidays. This means Sun Holidays was held liable for the
death of their son, Ruelito, who drowned when the boat they were aboard crashed. The
Court ruled that Sun Holidays conducted themselves irresponsibly by allowing the boat to
depart despite bad weather warnings. They also claimed Sun Holidays did not do enough to
keep its passengers safe. The Court determined that the ship's carelessness was the primary
cause of the disaster, regardless of Sun Holidays' claim that the boat flipped due to bad luck
or because of the sudden storm. The Court declared Sun Holidays responsible for their son's
death because they failed to prioritize safety and failed to apply the extra caution that is
demanded of firms that transport people.

Reference:
Robles,C. (2010) SPOUSES DANTE CRUZ AND LEONORA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SUN
HOLIDAYS, INC., RESPONDENT.
https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010junedecisions.php?id=335
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLzWyCqT1M
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jun2010/gr_186312_2010.html
ACTIVITY 5:

The recent issue surrounding the development of Captain’s Peak Resort within the
Chocolate Hills of Bohol has sparked significant public outcry and raised pertinent questions
regarding environmental conservation and responsible tourism practices in the Philippines.
The resort, situated in a UNESCO-declared Global Geopark and renowned as a national pride,
has drawn criticism for its construction without proper accreditation from the Department
of Tourism (DOT) and in violation of environmental regulations.

There are various reactions from different stakeholders, and all of them reflect a
shared concern for the preservation of natural resources and adherence to legal frameworks
aimed at safeguarding such sites. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) has taken action by issuing a Temporary Closure Order and a Notice of Violation to
the resort, emphasizing the importance of compliance with environmental regulations.

The response from the provincial government of Bohol demonstrates a commitment

to addressing the issue through legislative and regulatory measures, from various articles
that were sourced. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan Committee on Environment has also
conducted an investigation and submitted recommendations to prevent similar incidents in
the future. Additionally, there were efforts to engage with relevant government agencies
such as the DENR and Protected Area Management Bureau (PAMB) indicate a collaborative
approach towards enforcing policies that uphold the integrity of protected areas.

The role of civil society organizations, exemplified by youth group Stewards and
Volunteers for the Earth - Philippines (SAVE PH), showcases the importance of public
advocacy in holding authorities accountable for environmental stewardship. Their
condemnation of the resort's development as a disregard for Philippines' laws reflects
broader concerns about the prioritization of economic interests over environmental
conservation. The incident also highlights the need for stricter enforcement of regulations
governing tourism development and land use. While development is essential for economic
progress, it must be balanced with the preservation of natural heritage and adherence to
sustainable practices.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Captain’s Peak Resort in Chocolate Hills,

Bohol, serves as a wake-up call for policymakers, stakeholders, and the public to prioritize
environmental conservation in tourism development. The incident shows the importance of
robust regulatory frameworks, effective enforcement mechanisms, and public engagement
to ensure the sustainable management of natural resources for future generations.