Você está na página 1de 1

Crisostomo vs CA FACTS:

May 1991 Estela Crisostomo, lawyer Caravan Travel and Tours International Inc Jewels of Europe England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland And France 74,322.70 5% DISCOUNT Meriam Menor ticketing manager, niece June 12, 1991 Menor delivered ticket and said her flight is on Saturday Crisostomo went to NAIA on Saturday and found out that her flight was yesterday, Friday (June 14) Crisostomo went on another tour British pageant England, Scotland and Wales US43 785 or Php 20,881 (exchange rate: 26.60) She paid US$300 or P7,980 Trip scheduled on July Crisostomo demanded reimbursement but agency refused. Crisostomos claims: It was the agency through Menors fault that she wasnt able to join the tour and the British Pageant was merely a substitute for that so the costs of the former should be properly set-off against the sum paid for the latter. Concepcion Chipeco Operations Manager Agency: Crisostomo is to blame for missing her flight because she failed to look at the travel documents given to her Makati RTC: Both are guilty, Crisostomo guilty of contributory negligence, thus 10% should be deducted from the amount claimed CA: Both parties at fault but Crisostomo more negligent because she is a lawyer and well-traveled person, she should have known better than to simply reply on what was told to her.

ISSUE: WON Caravan Travel and Tours is a carrier?

HELD: NO 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 did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondents services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours. Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code. Menor already working in France. In the case at bar, 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.