Baliwag Transit, INC vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989
FACTS:
Private respondents, Sotero Cailipan, Zenaida Lopez and their son George, filed
complaint for damages from breach of contract of carriage against Baliwag Transit.
They alleged that George, who was a passenger on Baliwag Bus, suffered multiple
serious physical injuries when he was thrown off said bus driven in a careless and
negligent manner by Leonardo Cruz the driver. George was hospitalized for treatment,
medical expenses were borne by his parents.
Fortune Insurance and Baliwag each filed Motions to dismiss on the ground that
George, in consideration of the sum of P8,020.50 executed a “Release of Claims”. At
first the motions to dismiss were denied by the trial court but subsequently it was
granted.
By was of opposition to Baliwag’s defense, George father claimed that during the
incident, George was still a student and dependent on his parents for support and that
they had not signed the “Release of claims”.
RTC dismissed the complaint and ruled that since the contract of carriage was between
Baliwag Transit and George, who is of legal age, he had the exclusive right to execute
the Release of claims despite the fact that he is still a student and dependent on his
parents for support. Consequently the execution of the Release of Claims discharges
Baliwag and Fortune Insurance.
Spouses appeal to Court of Appeals, and ruled that the “Release Claims” cannot operate
as a valid ground for dismissal of the case because it does not have the conformity of
all parties, particularly George’s parents, who have substantial interest in the case
because they spent for the medical bills of their son. And assailed that Baliwag was not
release from its liability as a carrier in this suit for breach of contract.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Release of Claims executed by George has a legal effect?
RULING:
Since the suit is one for breach of contract of carriage, the Release of Claims executed
by George, discharging Fortune Insurance and Baliwag from any liability is valid. He
was of legal age and had the capacity to do acts with legal effect. Thus he could sue
and be sued even without the assistance of his parents.
The Contract of carriage between George, as the paying passenger and Baliwag, as the
common carrier. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto, as against
each other, in an action upon that contract the real parties in interest, either as plaintiff
or as defendant, must be parties to said contract. In the absence of any contract of
carriage between Baliwag and George’s parents, the latter are not the real parties-in-
interest for breach of contract.
The Release of Claims had the effect of a compromise agreement since it was entered
into for the purpose of making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement
of the cause of action involved. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by
making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
commence (Article 2028 Civil code).
British Airways, INC v. Court of Appeals
GR No. 92288 February 9, 1993

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the decision of the Court
of Appeals.
First International Trading and General Services Co., duly licensed domestic recruitment
and placement agency, received a telex message from its Principal ROLACO Engineering
and Contracting Services (ROLACO) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to recruit Filipino workers
on its behalf.
ROLACO paid British Airways, Inc. (BA) airfare tickets for 93 contract workers with specific
instruction to transport said workers to Jeddah on or before March 30, 1981.

As soon as BA received a prepaid ticket advice from its Jeddah branch informed First
Int’l. Thereafter, First Int’l instructed ADB travel and tours Inc. (its travel agent) to book
93 workers with BA, but it failed. So First Int’l need to borrow P304,416.00 to purchase
airline tickets from the other airlines for the 93 workers who must leave immediately
since the visa was valid only for 45 days and contract workers must be sent to the job
site within a period of 30 days as mandated by Bureau of Employment Services.
British Airways again received a prepaid ticket from ROLACO for transportation of 27
contract workers and informed First International who instructed ADB to book 27 contract
workers with the petitioner but the latter was only able to book 16 seats; only 9 workers
were able to board the flight and remaining 7 workers were rebooked which bookings
were again cancelled without prior notice; thereafter, the 7 workers were rebooked on
July 4, 1981 with 6 more workers booked; but confirmed bookings were again cancelled
and rebooked on July 7, 1981.

First Int’l paid travel tax of said workers as required by BA but once receipt of tax was
submitted, the latter informed that it can only confirm seat for 12 workers on July 7, 1981
flight; but again cancelled without notice. However, the 12 workers were able to leave
for Jeddah after First Int’l bought tickets from other airlines.

First Int’l sent a letter to petitioner demanding compensation for the damages amounting
P350,000.00 it had incurred for the repeated failure to transport its contract workers
despite confirmed bookings and payment of the corresponding travel taxes.

ISSUE:
Whether or not British Airways can be held liable?

RULING:

Yes. Its repeated failures to transport First International’s workers in its flight despite
confirmed booking of said workers clearly constitutes breach of contract and bad faith on
its part.

Two aspects of contract of common carriage of passengers:

contract to carry at some future time –consensual and is necessarily perfected by
mere consent
contract of carriage or of common carriage itself –real contract for not until the
carrier is actually used can the carrier be said to have already assumed the obligation
of a carrier
contract to carry was involved in the case; its elements are consent, consideration and
object certain
CONSENT: British Airways consent to the contract was manifested by its acceptance of
the PTA or prepaid ticket advice that ROLACO has prepaid the airfares of the First
International’s contract workers advising the appellant that it must transport the contract
workers on or before the end of March, 1981 and the other batch in June, 1981.

CONSIDERATION: the fare paid for the passengers by the principal of First International.

OBJECT CERTAIN: the transport of the passengers from the place of departure to the
place of destination.

First International has fully complied with the obligation, namely, the payment of the fare
and its willingness for its contract workers to leave for their place of destination.

On the other hand, British Airways was remiss in its obligation to transport the contract
workers on their flight despite confirmation and bookings made by First International’s
travelling agent. British Airways should have refused acceptance of the PTA from by First
International’s principal or to at least inform by First International that it could not
accommodate the contract workers.