Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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