You are on page 1of 1



On March 27, 1989, the private respondent, Philippines Air Lines,
Inc. (PAL) issued to the petitioner, Nicholas Cervantes
(Cervantes) a round trip plane ticket for Manila-Honolulu-Los
Angeles-Honolulu-Manila, which ticket expressly provided an
expiry date of 1 year from issuance, i.e, until March 27,1990.
On March 23, 1990, petitioner used it. Upon his arrival in Los
Angeles, he immediately booked a flight to Manila, which was
confirmed on April 2.
Upon learning that the plane would make a stop-over in San
Francisco, and because he would be there on April 2, petitioner
made arrangements to board in San Francisco. On April 2, he
was not allowed to board due to the expiration of his ticket.
Cervantes filed a Complaint for damages, for breach of contract of
carriage before RTC Surigao but it was dismissed for lack of
merit. He interposed an appeal to CA, upholding the dismissal of
the case.
He came to this Court via Petition for Review under Consideration.
1. Whether the act of the PAL agents in confirming subject ticket
extended the period of validity of petitioner's ticket.
2. Whether the defense of lack of authority was correctly ruled
1. NO. The Court ruled in favor of PAL. The court held that the
ticket issued by PAL constituted the contract between the parties. It
was clear and undisputed as to the expiration date of the ticket.

Under Article 1898[11] of the New Civil Code, the acts of an agent
beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless
the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly. Furthermore,
when the third person (herein petitioner) knows that the agent was
acting beyond his power or authority, the principal cannot be held
liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of
such limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to
recover damages from the agent, unless the latter undertook to
secure the principals ratification.
From appellants own testimony, it is clear that he knew from the
start that said agents had no authority to extend the validity of the
tickets. He himself testified that he was informed by the Legal
Department of PAL before he left the Philippines that to secure an
extension, he would have to file a written request at the PALs
office. Despite this knowledge, he still persisted to use the ticket in
Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said Agreement and
petitioner knew that a written request to the legal counsel of PAL
was necessary, he cannot use what the PAL agents did to his
advantage. The said agents, according to the Court of Appeals
acted without authority when they confirmed the flights of the
2. YES. PALs failure to raise the defense of lack of authority of the
said PAL agents in its answer or in a motion to dismiss, the
omission was cured since the said issue was litigated upon, as
shown by the testimony of Cervantes in the course of trial.
Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.