British Airways, Inc. v. CA, et al., GR. No. 92288, February 9, 199 . FAC!

" On February 15, 1981, respondent First International Trading and General Services Co., a duly licensed do estic recruit ent agency, received a tele! essage "ro its principal #O$%CO engineering and Contracting Services in Saudi %rabia to recruit Filipino contract &or'ers. In (arc) 1981, #O$%CO paid petitioner *ritis) %ir&ays air"are tic'ets "or 9+ contract &or'ers to transport t)e to ,edda) on or be"ore (arc) +-, 1981. T)erea"ter, respondent &as in"or ed t)at petitioners )ad "or&arded 9+ prepaid tic'ets. .o&ever, petitioner "ailed to "ly t)e 9+ &or'ers, t)ereby co pelling respondent to purc)ase airline tic'ets "ro ot)er airlines as t)e &or'ers ust leave i ediately because t)eir visas are valid "or only /5 days. 0uring t)e "irst &ee' o" ,une 1981, respondent &ere in"or ed t)at prepaid tic'ets )ad been received again "or t)e transportation o" t)e 12 &or'ers. .o&ever, a"ter boo'ing "lig)ts and con"ir ing seats, only 9 &or'ers &ere able to board. Ot)er boo'ings &ere cancelled and reboo'ed several ti es, &)ile respondent )ad paid travel ta!es as re3uired by petitioner. T)e ot)er &or'ers &ere only able to leave "inally a"ter respondent )ad boug)t tic'ets "ro ot)er airlines. %s a result, respondent "iled a co plaint "or da ages against petitioner "or its repeated "ailure to transport its contract &or'ers despite con"ir ed boo'ings and pay ent o" travel ta!es. 4etitioner contends t)at respondent )as no cause o" action because t)ere )as been no per"ected contract o" carriage e!isting bet&een t)e as no tic'et )as ever been issued to respondent. #TC rendered 5udg ent in "avor o" plainti"", )erein respondent. T)e decision &as a""ir ed by C%. I""#$ 6)et)er t)ere is an e!isting contract o" carriage bet&een t)e parties. %$&' 7es. In t)e instant case, a contract to carry 8at so e "uture ti e9 is involved, one &)ic) is per"ected by ere consent. 4etitioner:s consent &as ani"ested by its acceptance o" t)e 4repaid tic'et advice and even i" a 4T% is erely an advice "ro t)e sponsors t)at an airline is aut)ori;ed to issue a tic'et and t)us no tic'et &as yet issued, t)e "act re ains t)at t)e passage )ad already been paid "or by t)e principal and t)e petitioner )ad accepted t)at pay ent. %ccordingly, t)ere could be no ore pretensions as to t)e e!istence o" an oral contract o" carriage i posing reciprocal obligations on bot) parties. Facts clearly s)o& t)at petitioner &as re iss in its obligation to transport t)e &or'ers on t)eir "lig)t and t)ey )ad 'no&ledge t)at ti e &as o" t)e essence in "ul"illing suc) obligation. .ence, SC ruled in "avor o" respondents.