Scribd
Upload
113 views

Crisostomo Vs Court

Respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. is a travel agency that arranged a tour for Petitioner Estela Crisostomo. The agency provided her travel documents and tickets, informing her the incorrect flight date. When Petitioner arrived at the airport on the date provided, she discovered her flight had departed the previous day. The Court held that Respondent is not a common carrier since its role is to arrange travel and not transport passengers itself. As a travel agency, Respondent's standard of care is that of a good father of a family and it fulfilled its obligations under the contract by providing travel documents. The mistake could have been avoided if Petitioner had exercised due diligence by checking the details in the documents provided to her.

Uploaded by

Alexandra Parungo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views

Crisostomo Vs Court

Respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. is a travel agency that arranged a tour for Petitioner Estela Crisostomo. The agency provided her travel documents and tickets, informing her the incorrect flight date. When Petitioner arrived at the airport on the date provided, she discovered her flight had departed the previous day. The Court held that Respondent is not a common carrier since its role is to arrange travel and not transport passengers itself. As a travel agency, Respondent's standard of care is that of a good father of a family and it fulfilled its obligations under the contract by providing travel documents. The mistake could have been avoided if Petitioner had exercised due diligence by checking the details in the documents provided to her.

Uploaded by

Alexandra Parungo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Crisostomo vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:
A travel agency is not an entity engaged in thebusiness of transporting either passengersor
goods and is therefore, neither a private nor acommon carrier. Respondent did not
undertake totransport petitioner from one place to another since itscovenant with its
customers is simply to make travel
arrangements in their behalf. Respondents services as
a travel agency include procuring tickets andfacilitating travel permits or visas as well as
bookingcustomers for tours. It is in this sense that the contractbetween the parties in this
case was an ordinary onefor services and not one of carriage.Petitioner Estela L.
Crisostomo contracted the servicesof respondent Caravan Travel and ToursInternational,
Inc. to arrange and facilitate herbooking, ticketing, and accommodation in a tour
dubbed Jewels of Europe. A 5% discount on the total
cost of P74,322.70 which included the airfare wasgiven to the petitioner. The booking fee
was also
waived because petitioners niece, Meriam Menor,was respondents ticketing manager.
On June 12, 1991, Menor went to her aunts residenceto deliver petitioners travel docume
nts and planetickets. In return, petitioner gave the full payment forthe package tour. Menor
then told her to be at theNAIA on Saturday, June 15, 1991, two hours before herflight on
board British Airways. Without checking hertravel documents, petitioner went to NAIA and
to herdismay, she discovered that the flight she wassupposed to take had already departed
the previousday. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flightscheduled on June 14,
1991. She called up Menor tocomplain and Menor suggested upon petitioner to
takeanother tour British Pageant. Petitioner was asked anew to pay US$785.00.
Petitioner gave respondentUS$300 as partial payment and commenced the trip.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Caravan did notobserve the standard of care required of a
commoncarrier when it informed the petitioner wrongly of theflight schedule.
HELD:
The petition was denied for lack of merit. Thedecision of the Court of Appeals was
affirmed.A common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of theCivil Code as persons,
corporations, firms orassociations engaged in the business of carrying ortransporting
passengers or goods or both, by land,water or air, for compensation, affecting their
servicesto the public. It is obvious from the above definitionthat respondent is not an entity
engaged in thebusiness of transporting either passengers or goodsand is therefore, neither
a private nor a commoncarrier. Respondent did not undertake to transportpetitioner from
one place to another since its covenantwith its customers is simply to make travel
arrangements in their behalf. Respondents services as
a travel agency include procuring tickets andfacilitating travel permits or visas as well as
bookingcustomers for tours. It is in this sense that the contractbetween the parties in this
case was an ordinary onefor services and not one of carriage.The standard of care required

of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the CivilCode. This
connotes reasonable care consistent withthat which an ordinarily prudent person would
haveobserved when confronted with a similar situation. It isclear that respondent
performed its prestation underthe contract as well as everything else that wasessential to
book petitioner for the tour. Hadpetitioner exercised due diligence in the conduct of
heraffairs, there would have been no reason for her tomiss the flight. Needless to say, after
the travel paperswere delivered to petitioners, it became incumbentupon her to take
ordinary care of her concerns. Thisundoubtedly would require that she at least read
thedocuments in order to assure herself of the importantdetails regarding the trip.

You might also like