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 company’s ticketing
manager.
Menor went to her aunt’s residence to deliver
Crisostomo’s 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. Respondent’s
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 Menor’s
negligence concurred with that of Crisostomo. No
evidence to prove Menor’s 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.