CRISOSTOMO VS.

CA
[G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003]

ANSALAN, Ma. Pamela Aloha C.

TANTUAN, Edhona C.
FACTS:
Petitioner Estela Crisostomo contracted the services of respondent Caravan Travel
and Tours International, to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing, and
accommodation in a tour called Jewels of Europe. She was given a 5% discount
and a waived booking fee because her niece, Meriam Menor, was the companys
ticketing manager.
Menor went to her aunts residence to deliver Crisostomos travel documents and
plane tickets and get her payment. Menor told her to be in NAIA on Saturday.

When Crisostomo got to the airport on Saturday, she discovered that the flight she
was supposed to take had already departed the previous day. She complained to
Menor, and was urged by the latter to take another tour, instead British Pageant.
Upon returning from Europe, Crisostomo demanded P61,421.70 from
CaravanTours, representing the difference between the sum she paid for Jewels and
the amount she owed the company for British Pageant. Caravan refused.

Thus, Crisostomo filed a complaint against Caravan for breach of contract of

carriage and damages.
The trial court held in favor of Crisostomo, and ordered Caravan to pay her, because
it was negligent in erroneously advising Crisostomo of her departure. However,
Crisostmo is also guilty of contributory negligence (for failing to verify the exact date
and time of departure).

CA declared that Crisostomo is more negligent. As a lawyer and well-travelled

person, she should have known better. Hence this petition.

ISSUE & ARGUMENTS:

WON respondent Caravan is guilty of negligence and is liable to Crisostomo for
damages.
 Crisostomo: Respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a
common carrier, i.e. extraordinary diligence in the fulfillment of its obligation.

Caravan: Menor was not negligent. The date and time of departure was legibly
written on the plane ticket and the travel papers were given 2 days before the flight.
It performed all obligations to enable Crisostomo to join the group and exercised
due diligence in its dealings with the latter.

RULING:

A contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person or

association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news
from one place to another for a fixed price.
Respondent is not engaged in the business of transporting either passengers of
goods and is therefore not a common carrier. Respondents services as a travel
agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as
booking customers for tours.

A common carrier is bound by law to carry as far as human care and foresight can
provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons and with due regard for
all circumstances. But since Caravan is a travel agency, it is not bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligations.
For them, the standard of care required is that of a good father of a family. This
connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person
would have observed when confronted with a similar situation.

We do not concur with the finding that Menors negligence concurred with that of
Crisostomo. No evidence to prove Menors negligence.
The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligations renders him
liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence
of an obligor consists in the his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the
performance of the obligation. The degree of diligence required depends on the
circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a
question of fact that is to be determined in the case.