Crisostomo V. Ca

Crisostomo v CA G.R. No. 138334 Aug 25, 2003 Ynares-Santiaga, RCA j. Breach of Obligations>Negligence>Standard of Care Summary: In this case, the petitioner contracted with Caravan T&T (travel agency) for her trip to Europe. However, the petitioner missed her flight because the flight she was supposed to take had already departed from the previous day. Petitioner main contention’s is that, Caravan T&T, as a common carrier should observed EXTRA ORDINARY DILIGENCE. SC ruled that the standard of care required of common carrier is not applicable to Caravan T&T since from the nature of the latter is not to transport people but to make booking arrangements with their clients. The default standard of care is only diligence of a good father of a family. Doctrines:

The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands. There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation and each case must be determined upon its particular facts. 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 after taking into account the particulars of each case. Facts:       

Petitioner : Estela Crisostomo (Lawyer, well-travelled woman) Respondents: Caravan Travel & Tours Int’l Inc (Travel agency), Company’s Manager, Meriam Menor (niecec also of Estela) The petitioner contracted the respondent to arrange & facilitate her booking & ticketing & accommodation in “Jewels of Europe” tour. Menor, manager of the travel agency, went to the petitioner’s residence & deliver all necessary travel documents & advise the petitioner to be at NAIA on Saturday (Jun 15, 1991), two (2) hours before the flight. Without checking the travel documents, the petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday. However, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day. The petitioner then take another package (British Pageant) offered by the respondent; She went to RTC to demand reimbursement on the differential cost of the two tour packages. Petitioner holds that there was BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE & DAMAGES. Lower courts’ decision below:

o RTC: Respondent is negligent. Petitioner was merely guilty of contributory negligence. o CA: Petitioner is more negligent. Hence, not entitled for damages.

ISSUE/HOLDING: WON Caravan Travel & Tours is obliged to observe extra-ordinary diligence? (NO) Respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency. It is thus not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation, as petitioner claims. By definition, 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. It is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods. 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. Respondent’s services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours DISPOSITIVE: Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED