G.R.

L-57339, December 29, 1983

 • They purchased such tickets from
AIR FRANCE through Imperial
• Jose Gana and his family (the
Travels Incorporated, a duly
GANAS), purchased nine “open-
authorized travel agent.
dated” tickets or passage tickets
for Manila/Osaka/Tokyo/Manila
• Travel Dates: Manila/Osaka: May 8,
1970 and Tokyo/Manila: May 22,
1970

• Ticket Validity: Until May 8, 1971

• Terisita Manucdoc, Secretary
of Sta. Clara Lumber Company
for extension of the validity of
their tickets.
• Lee Ella, Manager of Philippine
Travel Bureau
• Tickets were returned to Ella
who was informed that extension
was not possible.
• Returned tickets to Terisita and
informed of such.

• Scheduled departure on May 7,
1971, day before the expiration
of tickets.
• Terisita requested travel agent
Ella for the revalidation of the
tickets again which the latter
gave negative effect and warned.
• Terisita replied that it will be
up to the GANAS to make the
arrangements.
• With that assurance, Ella attached
validating stickers for the tickets.
Made no more attempts to contact
Air France.
• Osaka/Tokyo and even
Tokyo/Manila return flight had
problems. Had to purchase new
tickets. They were able to return only
after pre-payment in Manila, through
relatives, of the readjusted rates.
• Upon return, the GANAS filed
complaint against AIR FRANCE.
  Dismissed the complaint of the GANAS based on
Partial and Additional Stipulations of Facts as well
as on the documentary and testimonial evidence.

 Reversed RTC’s ruling.

 Applying KLM v CA, holding that would be unfair to

charge the GANAS therein with automatic knowledge
or notice of conditions in contract of adhesion.

 Awarded damages to the GANAS in the amount of

P90,000 as moral damages arising from breach of
contract of carriage.
 Whether or not Terisita was the agent of the
GANAS;

 and notice to her of the rejection of the

request of the validity of the tickets was
notice to the GANAS, her principals.
AGENT OF THE GANAS
To all legal intents and purposes,
Terista was the agent of the GANAS,
and notice to her of the rejection of
the request for extension of the
validity of the tickets was notice to
the GANAS, her principals.
 The GANAS cannot defend contending lack
of knowledge of those rules since the
evidence bears out that Terisita, who
handled travel arrangements for the GANAS,
was duly informed by travel agent Ella of
the advice of Reno, the Office Manager of
Air France, that the tickets in question
could not be extended beyond the period of
their validity without paying the fare
differentials and additional travel taxes
brought about by the increased fare rate
and travel taxes.
 Validating stickers that affixed by Ella on his
own merely reflects the the status of
reservations on the specified flight and could
not be tantamount to an implied ratification
of travel agent Ella’s irregular actuations. Air
France also was unaware of this.

 Japan Airlines and Air France merely acted

within their contractual rights.