SINGSON vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS

G.R. No. 119995. November 18, 1997
FACTS:
Petitioner Singson and his cousin Tiongson bought from respondent Cathay
Pacific Airways two (2) open-dated, identically routed, round trip plane tickets
(Manila to Los Angeles and vice versa). Each ticket consisted of six (6) flight
coupons, each would be detached at the start of each leg of the trip.
Singson failed to obtain a booking in Los Angeles for their trip to Manila.
Apparently, the coupon corresponding to the 5th leg of the trip was missing and
instead the 3rd was still attached. It was not until few days later that the
defendant finally was able to arrange for his return to Manila.
Singson commenced an action for damages based on breach of contract of
carriage against CATHAY before the Regional Trial Court. CATHAY alleged that
there was no contract of carriage yet existing such that CATHAYs refusal to
immediately book him could not be construed as breach of contract of carriage.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner herein holding that
CATHAY was guilty of gross negligence amounting to malice and bad faith. On
appeal by CATHAY, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts finding that
there was gross negligence amounting to bad faith or fraud and, accordingly,
modified its judgment by deleting the awards for moral and exemplary
damages, and the attorneys fees as well.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a breach of contract was committed by CATHAY when it failed to
confirm the booking of petitioner.
HELD:
Yes. The round trip ticket issued by the carrier to the passenger was in itself a
complete written contract by and between the carrier and the passenger. It had
all the elements of a complete written contract, to wit: (a) the consent of the
contracting parties manifested by the fact that the passenger agreed to be
transported by the carrier to and from Los Angeles via San Francisco and Hong
Kong back to the Philippines, and the carriers acceptance to bring him to his
destination and then back home; (b) cause or consideration, which was the fare
paid by the passenger as stated in his ticket; and, (c) object, which was the
transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the place of
destination and back, which are also stated in his ticket. In fact, the contract of
carriage in the instant case was already partially executed as the carrier
complied with its obligation to transport the passenger to his destination, i.e.,
Los Angeles. The loss of the coupon was attributable to the negligence of
CATHAYs agents and was the proximate cause of the non-confirmation of
petitioner's return flight.