Você está na página 1de 4

AGENCY CASES Part 2 Page 1 of 4

BRITISH AIRWAYS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and FIRST INTERNATIONAL
TRADING AND GENERAL SERVICES, respondents.
First International Trading and General Services Co., a duly licensed domestic recruitment and placement agency,
received a telex message from its principal ROLCO !ngineering and Contracting Services in "edda#, Saudi
ra$ia to recruit Filipino contract %or&ers in $e#alf of said principal.
4
'uring t#e early part of (arc# )*+), said Rolaco paid to t#e "edda# $ranc# of petitioner ,ritis# ir%ays, Inc.
airfare tic&ets for *- contract %or&ers %it# specific instruction to transport said %or&ers to "edda# on or $efore
(arc# -., )*+).
s soon as ,ritis# received a prepaid tic&et advice from its "edda# $ranc# to transport t#e *- %or&ers, it informed
Int/l Tranding and General services a$out t#e for%arded *- tic&ets. T#ereafter, private respondent instructed its
travel agent, ', Travel and Tours. Inc., to $oo& t#e *- %or&ers %it# petitioner $ut t#e latter failed to fly said
%or&ers, t#ere$y compelling private respondent to $orro% money in t#e amount of 0-.1,1)2... in order to
purc#ase airline tic&ets from t#e ot#er airlines as evidenced $y t#e cas# vouc#ers for t#e *- %or&ers it #ad
recruited %#o must leave immediately since t#e visas of said %or&ers are valid only for 13 days and t#e ,ureau of
!mployment Services mandates t#at contract %or&ers must $e sent to t#e 4o$ site %it#in a period of -. days.
Sometime in t#e first %ee& of "une, )*+), private respondent %as again informed $y t#e petitioner t#at it #ad
received a prepaid tic&et advice from its "edda# $ranc# for t#e transportation of 56 contract %or&ers. Immediatety,
private respondent instructed its travel agent to $oo& t#e 56 contract %or&ers %it# t#e petitioner $ut t#e latter %as
only a$le to $oo& and confirm )2 seats on its "une *, )*+) flig#t. 7o%ever, on t#e date of t#e sc#eduled flig#t only
* %or&ers %ere a$le to $oard said flig#t %#ile t#e remaining 6 %or&ers %ere re$oo&ed to "une -., )*+) %#ic#
$oo&ings %ere again cancelled $y t#e petitioner %it#out any prior notice to eit#er private respondent or t#e
%or&ers. 8xx t#e confirmed $oo&ings of t#e )- %or&ers %ere again cancelled and re$oo&ed to "uly 6, )*+).
On "uly 2, )*+), private respondent paid t#e travel tax of t#e said %or&ers as re9uired $y t#e petitioner $ut %#en
t#e receipt of t#e tax payments %as su$mitted, t#e latter informed private respondent t#at it can only confirm t#e
seats of t#e )5 %or&ers on its "uly 6, )*+) flig#t. 7o%ever, t#e confirmed seats of said %or&ers %ere again
cancelled %it#out any prior notice eit#er to t#e private respondent or said %or&ers. T#e )5 %or&ers %ere finally
a$le to leave for "edda# after private respondent #ad $oug#t tic&ets from t#e ot#er airlines.
s a result of t#ese incidents, private respondent sent a letter to petitioner demanding compensation for t#e
damages it #ad incurred $y t#e latter:s repeated failure to transport its contract %or&ers despite confirmed $oo&ings
and payment of t#e corresponding travel taxes.
On "uly 5-, )*+), t#e counsel of private respondent sent anot#er letter to t#e petitioner demanding t#e latter to pay
t#e amount of 0-3.,...... representing damages and unreali;ed profit or income %#ic# %as denied $y t#e
petitioner.
On ugust +, )*+), private respondent received a telex message from its principal cancelling t#e #iring of t#e
remaining recruited %or&ers due to t#e delay in transporting t#e %or&ers to "edda#.
5
On "anuary 56, )*+5, private respondent filed a complaint for damages against ,ritis#..
ccording to ,ritis#< =t#at> ).. persons to transport private respondent:s contract %or&ers from (anila to "edda#
on or $efore (arc# -., )*+). 7o%ever, due to t#e unavaila$ility of space and limited time, petitioner #ad to return
to its sponsor in "edda# t#e prepaid tic&et advice conse9uently not even one of t#e alleged *- contract %or&ers
%ere $oo&ed in any of its flig#ts.
On several dates, ,ritis# received anot#er prepaid tic&et advice to transport contract %or&ers of private respondent
to "edda# $ut t#e travel agent of t#e private respondent $oo&ed only some t#ere$y said travel agent cancelled t#e
$oo&ing of passengers %#ile t#e ot#er passengers did not s#o% up on said flig#t.
7o%ever on "uly 2, )*+), petitioner:s computer system $ro&e do%n %#ic# resulted to petitioner:s failure to get a
reconfirmation from Saudi ra$ia irlines causing t#e automatic cancellation of t#e $oo&ings of private
respondent:s )5 contract %or&ers. In t#e morning of "uly 6, )*+), t#e computer system of t#e petitioner %as
reinstalled and immediately petitioner tried to reinstate t#e $oo&ings of t#e )5 %or&ers %it# eit#er Gulf ir or Saudi
ra$ia irlines $ut $ot# airlines replied t#at no seat %as availa$le on t#at date and #ad to place t#e )5 %or&ers on
t#e %ait list. Said information %as duly relayed to t#e private respondent and t#e )5 %or&ers $efore t#e sc#eduled
flig#t.
OSTIA. OraEtLabora. 02/07/13
AGENCY CASES Part 2 Page 2 of 4
Trial Court< rendered 4udgment against ,ritis# and ordered to pay Int/lxx damages. (R denied. C affirmed TC.
(R denied. 7ence, t#is petition.
ccording to ,ritis#< t#at private respondent #as no cause of action against it t#ere $eing no perfected contract of
carriage existing $et%een t#em as no tic&et %as ever issued to private respondent:s contract %or&ers and,
t#erefore, t#e o$ligation of t#e petitioner to transport said contract %or&ers did not arise. Furt#ermore, private
respondent:s failure to attac# any tic&et in t#e complaint furt#er proved t#at it %as never a party to t#e alleged
transaction.
SC< ffirmed C.
0rivate respondent #ad a valid cause of action for damages against petitioner. 8x 0etitioner:s repeated failures to
transport private respondent:s %or&ers in its flig#t despite confirmed $oo&ing of said %or&ers clearly constitutes
$reac# of contract and $ad fait# on its part.xx
In dealing with the contract of common carriage of passengers for purpose of accuracy, there are two (2) aspects
of the same, namely: (a) the contract "to carry (at some future time)," which contract is consensual and is
necessarily perfected by mere consent (See Article 1!", #i$il #ode of the %hilippines), and (b) the contract "of
carriage" or "of common carriage" itself which should be considered as a real contract for not until the carrier is
actually used can the carrier be said to ha$e already assumed the obligation of a carrier& (%aras, #i$il #ode
Annotated, 'ol& ', p& (2), *le$enth *d&)
In the instant case, the contract "to carry" is the one in$ol$ed which is consensual and is perfected by the mere
consent of the parties&
+here is no dispute as to the appellee,s consent to the said contract "to carry" its contract wor-ers from .anila to
/eddah& +he appellant,s consent thereto, on the other hand, was manifested by its acceptance of the %+A or
prepaid tic-et ad$ice that 012A#1 *ngineering has prepaid the airfares of the appellee,s contract wor-ers
ad$ising the appellant that it must transport the contract wor-ers on or before the end of .arch, 1)31 and the
other batch in /une, 1)31&
*$en if a %+A is merely an ad$ice from the sponsors that an airline is authori4ed to issue a tic-et and thus no tic-et
was yet issued, the fact remains that the passage had already been paid for by the principal of the appellee, and
the appellant had accepted such payment& +he e5istence of this payment was ne$er ob6ected to nor 7uestioned by
the appellant in the lower court& +hus, the cause or consideration which is the fare paid for the passengers e5ists
in this case&
+he third essential re7uisite of a contract is an ob6ect certain& In this contract "to carry", such an ob6ect is the
transport of the passengers from the place of departure to the place of destination as stated in the tele5&
Accordingly, there could be no more pretensions as to the e5istence of an oral contract of carriage imposing
reciprocal obligations on both parties&
In the case of appellee, it has fully complied with the obligation, namely, the payment of the fare and its willingness
for its contract wor-ers to lea$e for their place of destination&
1n the other hand, the facts clearly show that appellant was remiss in its obligation to transport the contract
wor-ers on their flight despite confirmation and boo-ings made by appellee,s tra$elling agent&
555 555 555 8esides, appellant -new $ery well that time was of the essence as the prepaid tic-et ad$ice had
specified the period of compliance therewith, and with emphasis that it could only be used if the passengers fly on
8A& 9nder the circumstances, the appellant should ha$e refused acceptance of the %+A from appellee,s principal
or to at least inform appellee that it could not accommodate the contract wor-ers&
555 555 555 :hile there is no dispute that 012A#1 *ngineering ad$anced the payment for the airfares of the
appellee,s contract wor-ers who were recruited for 012A#1 *ngineering and the said contract wor-ers were the
intended passengers in the aircraft of the appellant, the said contract "to carry" also in$ol$ed the appellee for as
recruiter he had to see to it that the contract wor-ers should be transported to 012A#1 *ngineering in /eddah
thru the appellant,s transportation& ;or that matter, the in$ol$ement of the appellee in the said contract "to carry"
was well demonstrated when the appellant upon recei$ing the %+A immediately ad$ised the appellee thereof&
10
Re< 0ayment of ctual damages ? no ground. 8xx %#ile it may $e true t#at private respondent %as compelled to
$orro% money for t#e airfare tic&ets of its contract %or&ers %#en petitioner failed to transport said %or&ers, t#e
reim$ursements made $y its principal to private respondent failed to support t#e latter:s claim t#at it suffered actual
OSTIA. OraEtLabora. 02/07/13
AGENCY CASES Part 2 Page 3 of 4
damages as a result of petitioner:s failure to transport said %or&ers. It is undisputed t#at private respondent #ad
consistently admitted t#at its principal #ad reim$ursed all its expenses.
7o%ever, private respondent is entitled to an a%ard of moral and exemplary damages for t#e in4ury suffered as a
result of petitioner:s failure to transport t#e former:s %or&ers $ecause of t#e latter:s patent $ad fait# in t#e
performance of its o$ligation.
GUILLERMO AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Se!nd D"#"$"!n%, PACIFICO ABAD and
MARIA G. ABAD, respondents.
(aria G. $ad ac&no%ledged #aving received from Guillermo ustria one =)> pendant %it# diamonds valued at
01,3....., to $e sold on commission $asis or to $e returned on demand. On ) Fe$ruary )*2), #o%ever, %#ile
%al&ing #ome to #er residence in (andaluyong, Ri;al, $ad %as said to #ave $een accosted $y t%o men, one of
%#om #it #er on t#e face, %#ile t#e ot#er snatc#ed #er purse containing 4e%elry and cas#, and ran a%ay. mong
t#e pieces of 4e%elry allegedly ta&en $y t#e ro$$ers %as t#e consigned pendant. T#e incident $ecame t#e su$4ect
of a criminal case. s $ad failed to return t#e 4e%elry or pay for its value not%it#standing demands, ustria
$roug#t in t#e Court of First Instance of (anila an action against #er and #er #us$and for recovery of t#e pendant
or of its value, and damages. ns%ering t#e allegations of t#e complaint, defendants spouses set up t#e defense
t#at t#e alleged ro$$ery #ad extinguis#ed t#eir o$ligation.
fter due #earing, t#e trial court rendered 4udgment for t#e plaintiff, and ordered defendants spouses, 4ointly and
severally, to pay to t#e former t#e sum of 01,3.....xx. It %as #eld t#at defendants failed to prove t#e fact of
ro$$ery, or, if indeed it %as committed, t#at defendant (aria $ad %as guilty of negligence %#en s#e %ent #ome
%it#out any companion, alt#oug# it %as already getting dar& and s#e %as carrying a large amount of cas# and
valua$les on t#e day in 9uestion, and suc# negligence did not free #er from lia$ility for damages for t#e loss of t#e
4e%elry.
T#e appellate court overruling t#e finding of t#e trial court on t#e lac& of credi$ility of t#e t%o defense %itnesses
%#o testified on t#e occurrence of t#e ro$$ery, and #olding t#at t#e facts of ro$$ery and defendant (aria $ad:s
possesion of t#e pendant on t#at unfortunate day #ave $een duly pu$lis#ed, declared respondents not responsi$le
for t#e loss of t#e 4e%elry on account of a fortuitous event, and relieved t#em from lia$ility for damages to t#e
o%ner. 0laintiff t#ereupon instituted t#e present proceeding.
ccording to ustria< It is petitioner:s t#eory t#at for ro$$ery to fall under t#e category of a fortuitous event and
relieve t#e o$ligor from #is o$ligation under a contract, pursuant to rticle ))61 of t#e ne% Civil Code, t#ere oug#t
to $e prior finding on t#e guilt of t#e persons responsi$le t#erefor. In s#ort, t#at t#e occurrence of t#e ro$$ery
s#ould $e proved $y a final 4udgment of conviction in t#e criminal case. To adopt a different vie%, petitioner argues,
%ould $e to encourage persons accounta$le for goods or properties received in trust or consignment to connive
%it# ot#ers, %#o %ould $e %illing to $e accused in court for t#e ro$$ery, in order to $e a$solved from civil lia$ility
for t#e loss or disappearance of t#e entrusted articles.
SC< 0etition dismissed. C 4udgment affirmed.
It is recogni;ed in t#is 4urisdiction t#at to constitute a caso fortuito t#at %ould exempt a person from responsi$ility, it
is necessary t#at =)> t#e event must $e independent of t#e #uman %ill =or rat#er, of t#e de$tor:s or o$ligor:s>@ =5>
t#e occurrence must render it impossi$le for t#e de$tor to fulfill t#e o$ligation in a normal manner@ and t#at =-> t#e
o$ligor must $e free of participation in or aggravation of t#e in4ury to t#e creditor.
&
fortuitous event, t#erefore, can
$e produced $y nature, e.g., eart#9ua&es, storms, floods, etc., or $y t#e act of man, suc# as %ar, attac& $y
$andits, ro$$ery,
'
etc., provided t#at t#e event #as all t#e c#aracteristics enumerated a$ove.
It is not #ere disputed t#at if respondent (aria $ad %ere indeed t#e victim of ro$$ery, and if it %ere really true t#at
t#e pendant, %#ic# s#e %as o$liged eit#er to sell on commission or to return to petitioner, %ere ta&en during t#e
ro$$ery, t#en t#e occurrence of t#at fortuitous event %ould #ave extinguis#ed #er lia$ility. T#e point at issue in t#is
proceeding is #o% t#e fact of ro$$ery is to $e esta$lis#ed in order t#at a person may avail of t#e exempting
provision of rticle ))61 of t#e ne% Civil Code, %#ic# reads as follo%s<
A0+& 11<(& *5cept in cases e5pressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation re7uires the assumption of ris-, no person shall be responsible for those e$ents which
could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were ine$itable&
It may $e noted t#e reform t#at t#e emp#asis of t#e provision is on t#e events, not on t#e agents or factors
responsi$le for t#em. To avail of t#e exemption granted in t#e la%, it is not necessary t#at t#e persons responsi$le
for t#e occurrence s#ould $e found or punis#ed@ it %ould only $e sufficient to esta$lis#ed t#at t#e enforcea$le
event, t#e ro$$ery in t#is case did ta&e place %it#out any concurrent fault on t#e de$tor:s part, and t#is can $e
done $y preponderant evidence. To re9uire in t#e present action for recovery t#e prior conviction of t#e culprits in
OSTIA. OraEtLabora. 02/07/13
AGENCY CASES Part 2 Page 4 of 4
t#e criminal case, in order to esta$lis# t#e ro$$ery as a fact, %ould $e to demand proof $eyond reasona$le dou$t
to prove a fact in a civil case.
It is undenia$le t#at in order to completely exonerate t#e de$tor for reason of a fortutious event, suc# de$tor must,
in addition to t#e cams itself, $e free of any concurrent or contri$utory fault or negligence.

It is clear t#at under t#e circumstances prevailing at present in t#e City of (anila and its su$ur$s, %it# t#eir #ig#
incidence of crimes against persons and property t#at renders travel after nig#tfall a matter to $e sedulously
avoided %it#out suita$le precaution and protection, t#e conduct of respondent (aria G. $ad, in returning alone to
#er #ouse in t#e evening, carrying 4e%elry of considera$le value %ould $e negligent per se and %ould not exempt
#er from responsi$ility in t#e case of a ro$$ery. Ae are not persuaded, #o%ever, t#at t#e same rule s#ould o$tain
ten years previously, in )*2), %#en t#e ro$$ery in 9uestion did ta&e place, for at t#at time criminality #ad not $y far
reac#ed t#e levels attained in t#e present day.
T#ere is li&e%ise no merit in petitioner:s argument t#at to allo% t#e fact of ro$$ery to $e recogni;ed in t#e civil case
$efore conviction is secured in t#e criminal action, %ould pre4udice t#e latter case, or %ould result in inconsistency
s#ould t#e accused o$tain an ac9uittal or s#ould t#e criminal case $e dismissed. It must $e reali;ed t#at a court
finding t#at a ro$$ery #as #appened %ould not necessarily mean t#at t#ose accused in t#e criminal action s#ould
$e found guilty of t#e crime@ nor %ould a ruling t#at t#ose actually accused did not commit t#e ro$$ery $e
inconsistent %it# a finding t#at a ro$$ery did ta&e place. T#e evidence to esta$lis# t#ese facts %ould not
necessarily $e t#e same.
OSTIA. OraEtLabora. 02/07/13

Você também pode gostar