Crisostomo v. CA and Caravan Travel & Tours.

Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services,
G.R. no. 138334
FACTS: Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of Caravan Travel and
Tours to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a
tour dubbed "Jewels of Europe". The total cost of P74,322.70 which includes her
booking, ticketing and accommodation.
Her niece was Meriam Menor,company’s ticketing manager, gave her the
travel documents and told her to at NAIA on saturday. Without checking her
documents, Estala went to NAIA on saturday. To her dismay, she discovered that
the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day.
Now, she was advised by Menor to take another tour. She paid partially.
Upon returning from England, Estela demanded for reimbursement from
the “Jewels of Europe”. But the company refused contending that it was non-
refundable.
Estela asserts that the failure to join the first tour was due to respondents
fault since it did not clearly indicate the departure date on the plane ticket. The
company was negligent in informing her the wrong flight schedule though Menor.
the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family
under Article 1173 of the Civil Code. This connotes reasonable care consistent
with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when
confronted with a similar situation.
This lead to the question whether reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used was applied in the case. The
respondent company consistently denied that Menor was negligent. The date and
time was legibly written on the ticket and the papers were delivered two days in
advance. It performed all its obligation for Estela to join the tour and exercised
due diligence.
The Court agrees to this. This action of Menor does not resultantly
caused the damage to Estela. Contrary to Estela’s claim, records shows that the
company exercised due diligence and followed the standard procedure. The
documents were properly and made and are very clear on their details.
The evidence on record shows that respondent company performed its
duty diligently and did not commit any contractual breach. Hence, petitioner
cannot recover and must bear her own damage.

RTC: company was negligent

CA: Both parties are at fault but Estela is more negligen than the company
because as a lawyer and well-travelled person, she should have known better
than to simply rely o what was told to her.

ISSUE: WON extraordinary diligence is required upon the company in the

fulfillment of its obligation, and have they observed it.

HELD: NO.
By definition, 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.
It is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity
engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is
therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Respondent did not undertake
to transport petitioner from one place to another. Its service is to simply make
travel arrangements.
While Estela bought her tickets through the company, this does not mean
that the company is a common carrier. The company acted merely as an agent of
the airline. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place
to another.
Thus, as the company is not considered as a common carrier but a travel
agency. It is not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence.