5.“British Pageant” tour was not a substitute, but rather a separate tour thatCrisostomo contracted after realizing her mistake for the first tour
Trial Court decided in favor of Crisostomo, but found her
guilty of contributorynegligence
, which is its basis for lowering the damages awarded
Both parties appealed to the CA, which found them both at fault
However, it found Crisostomo more negligent because
as a lawyer and a well-traveled person, she should have known better than to simply rely on what she was told
CA ordered her to pay the balance because she had already
forfeited her right tothe “Jewels of Europe” tour
She appealed to the SC, saying:
as a common carrier it failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence that the lawrequires from it2.If she were negligent, it was only contributory and not the proximate cause of the damages she suffered
ISSUE: WON CTTI was required to exercise extraordinary diligence in fulfillingits obligation.HELD: NO. The contract involved is not one of carriage and transportation, noris CTTI a common carrier. It is but a travel agency and, therefore, itis only required to exercise the ordinary diligence of a good father of a family.
Contract of carriage or transportation – whereby a person or association of personsobligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to anotherfor a fixed price
Classified as private (or special) carriers andcommon (or public) carriers
Common carrier (accdg. to Art. 1732 of the CC)- persons or associations engaged inthe business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both by lane, wateror air for compensation, offering their services to the public
For reasons of public policy, common carriers are required to carry passengers as faras human care and foresight can provide using the
utmost diligence of a very cautious persons and with due regard for all circumstances
Art. 1755, CC
In this case, CTTI did not undertake to transport petitioner, it merely obligated itself to make travel arrangements, such as procuring tickets, facilitating travel permits orvisas, booking customers for tours, etc.
At most, it is merely an agent of the airline
There was only an ordinary contract between the parties, which only requires thediligence of a good father of a family (Art. 1173 of the CC) (
reasonable care of anordinarily prudent person
Test to determine W/N a party is negligent: DID THE DEFENDANT IN DOINGTHE ALLEGED NEGLIGENT ACT USE THAT REASONABLE CARE AND CAUTIONWHICH AN ORDINARILY PRUDENT PERSON WOULD HAVE USED INTHESAMESITUATION?
Fault or negligence consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in theperformance of the obligation as the
of the obligation demands. There is nofixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation. Ineach case, the degree of diligence requires depends on the circumstances of thespecific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a question of fact that is tobe determined after taking into account the particulars of each case
Where the ticket and travel documents were delivered sufficiently ahead scheduledflight, and where date and time of flight was legibly written of the plane ticket, CTTIexercised due diligence and performed all its obligations to enable Crisostomo to jointhe tour
Had petitioner exercised due diligence, there would have been no reason for her tomiss the flight. After travel papers were delivered to petitioner, it became incumbentupon her to take ordinary care of her concerns, which requires that she at least readthe documents to assure herself of the important details of her trip
The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liablefor damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee.Therefore, petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the balance of the price of the “BritishPagent” tour with legal interest of 6% from the time the counterclaim was filed until thefinality of this Decision. After Decision becomes final and executory, the legal interestwould be 12% because the obligation is now the equivalent to a credit
Cetus Development Corp. v. CA
Ederlina Navalta, Ong Teng, Jose Liwanag, Leandro Canlas, Victoria Sudario,and Flora Nagbuya were the lessees of the premises located at No. 512 QuezonBoulevard, Quiapo, Manila, originally owned by the Susana Realty. Payments of the rentals were paid by the lessees to a collector of the Susana Realty whowent to the premises monthly
March 1984 - Susana Realty sold the leased premises to Cetus Development,Inc.
April to June 1984 – he lessees continued to pay their monthly rentals to acollector sent Cetus. For July, August and September the lessees failed to paytheir monthly individual rentals as no collector came.
October 9, 1984 – Cetus sent a letter to each of the lessees demanding thatthey vacate the premises and to pay the back rentals for the months of July toSeptember, within 15 days upon the receipt thereof. The lessees paid therespective arrearage in rent which were accepted by Cetus subject to theunilateral condition that the acceptance was without prejudice to the filing of anejectment suit. Subsequent monthly rental payments were likewise accepted.
The lessees failed to vacate he remises and as such the Cetus Inc. filed with theMTC of Manila complaints for ejectment. The lessees claimed that since theoccupancy of the premises they paid their monthly rental regularly through acollector of the lessor; that their non-payment of the rentals for the months of July, August and September, 1984, was due to the failure of the petitioner (asthe new owner) to send its collector; that they were at a loss as to where theyshould pay their rentals.
The MTC dismissed the cases. The acceptance of the back rental by the plaintiff before the filing of the complaint, as in this case, the alleged rental arrearageswere paid immediately after receipt of the demand letter, removes its cause of action in an unlawful detainer case, even if the acceptance was withoutprejudice.
Cetus appealed to the RTC and the case was dismissed for lack of merit.Issue