Crisostomo v. CA and Caravan Travel & Tours Intl. Inc.

(2003)
J. Ynares- Santiago
Doctrine: A travel agency is not a common carrier obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence
in the performance of its functions. The object of the contractual relation between a travel
agency and its client is its service of booking, ticketing and accommodation in package tours, as
opposed to the object of the contractual relation between a common carrier and a passenger,
which is the transportation of passengers or goods.
Facts:

Estela Crisostomo contracted Caravan Travel and Tours Intl Inc.s services to facilitate
her booking, ticketing, and accommodation in a European tour. Her niece, Ms. Menor
was the companys ticketing manager. Ms. Menor delivered the travel documents and
plane tickets to Estela on a Wednesday and told Estela to be at the NAIA on Saturday, 2
hrs. before her flight. Estela paid the full price of the package.

Estela did not check her travel documents and proceeded to NAIA on Saturday for her
flight, but discovered that the flight she was supposed to take already left the day before.
She complained to Ms. Menor, who in turn convinced her to take another tour package.
Estela thereafter claimed reimbursement (difference between what Estela paid for the
first tour package and what she owed for the 2 nd tour package which she was able to
avail), but Caravan refused.

Estela filed a complaint against Caravan for breach of contract of carriage and
damages1.

BASES OF HER COMPLAINT:

o
o

Caravan did not clearly indicate the departure date on the plane ticket
Negligence of the company (through Menor) shown by wrong
information as to the flight schedule

Eligible for a refund wrt the 1st tour package which she was not able to
avail of because of the wrong information given her as to the date of her
flight

CARAVANs COUNTERARGUMENTS:
o

The departure date was clearly printed on the plane ticket

travel documents given 2 days BEFORE the scheduled trip

NOTE: Estelas theory revolved around her contention that Caravan was a common carrier and was thus obligated to exercise
extraordinary diligence, so that Estela could not have been more negligent than Caravan given Caravans responsibility to exercise
extraordinary diligence in accordance with the contract of carriage

Industry practice of disallowing refund for individuals who fail to take a

booked tour

RTC held that Caravan was negligent in advising Estela of the WRONG departure date,
but Estela was likewise guilty of contributory negligence since she should have verified
the date and time of her trip.

CA ruled that Estela was more negligent than Caravan because Estela shouldve verified
the date of her departure by looking at the travel documents and tickets given her (esp.
since she is a lawyer and well-traveled person).

Issues + Ruling: WON Caravan was a common carrier to which the duty of exercising
extraordinary diligence can be imputed (No)

Caravan is not a common carrier under CC 1732 as it is NOT an entity engaged in the
business of transporting either passengers or goods. Its business is making travel
arrangements for its customers, NOT transporting passengers or goods from one place
to another.

IMPORTANT: The nature of the contractual relation between two parties is

determinative of the degree of care required in the performance of either partys
obligation under the contract

The object of Estelas contractual relation with Caravan is Caravans service of

arranging and facilitating petitioners booking, ticketing and accommodation in the
package tour, as against the object of a contract of carriage --- the
transportation of passengers or goods.
o

THUS, Caravan is not a common carrier and not expected to exercise

extraordinary diligence

Degree of Diligence expected of a common carrier in a contract of carriage = as

far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons and with due regard for all the circumstances

The contract between Caravan and Estela is an ordinary contract for services, which
only requires, as the standard of care, the diligence of a good father of a family under
CC 1173

Diligence of a good father of a family = Reasonable care consistent with that

which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a
similar situation

IMPORTANT: Evidence on record shows that Caravan exercised due diligence in

performing its contractual obligations and followed standard procedure in
rendering its services.

Plane ticket issued to petitioner reflected the departure date and time of
her flight

Travel documents were delivered to Estela two days before her trip.

Caravan also booked Estela for the tour, prepared the documents and
procured the plane tickets

Caravans failure to present Menor as witness to rebut Estelas assertion that

Caravan did not clearly indicate the date and time of her flight DID NOT GIVE
RISE TO AN UNFAVORABLE INFERENCE against Caravan.
o

It was physically impossible to have Menor testify as she was already

working in France when the complaint was filed

In any case, both parties couldve obtained Menors testimony so it was

wrong for the court to hold that there is a presumption that Caravan
willfully suppressed evidence (under Rule 131, Section 3e).

Menors negligence was not sufficiently proved since it was only based on
Estelas uncorroborated narration of events. The party alleging a fact has the
burden of proving it; a mere allegation cannot take the place of evidence.

After the travel documents and plane tickets were delivered to Estela, she had
the obligation to take ordinary care of her concerns, at least reading the
documents delivered to her to keep herself informed about the important details
regarding her trip. 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. In the case at bar, the evidence on record
shows that respondent company performed its duty diligently and did not commit
any contractual breach.

THUS, petitioner cannot recover and must bear her own damage.