 FACTS:

 1. Petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo (Crisostomo)

contracted the services of respondent Caravan Travel
and Tours International, Inc. (Caravan) to arrange and
facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation
in a tour dubbed “Jewels of Europe”.

 2. Pursuant to said contract, Meriam Menor (Menor)

who is also the niece of Crisostomo, went to the
latter’s residence to deliver the travel documents and
plane tickets. Crisostomo, in turn, gave Menor the full
payment for the package tour.
 3. Without checking her travel documents,
Crisostomo went to NAIA. However, she
discovered that the flightshe was supposed to
take had already departed the previous day.
She thus called up Menor to complain.

 4. Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon

Crisostomo to take another tour the “British
Pageant” to which Crisostomo was asked to
pay once again.
 5. Upon Crisostomo’s return from Europe,
she demanded from Caravan the
reimbursement of P61,421.70,representing
the difference between the sum she paid for
“Jewels of Europe” and the amount she owed
Caravan for the “British Pageant” tour. Despite
several demands, Caravan refused to
reimburse the amount, contending that the
same was non-refundable. Crisostomo
thus filed a case.
 6. Crisostomo alleged that her failure to join “Jewels
of Europe” was due to Caravan’s fault since it did not
clearly indicate the departure date on the plane
ticket. Caravan was also negligent in informing her of
the wrong flight schedule through its employee
Menor.

 7. Caravan insisted that Crisostomo was informed of

the correct departure date, which was clearly and
legibly printed on the plane ticket. The travel
documents were given two days ahead of the
scheduled trip. Crisostomo had only herself to blame
for missing the flight, as she did not bother to read
or confirm her flight schedule as printed on the
ticket.
 8. RTC: Caravan was negligent in erroneously
advising Crisostomo of the wrong date. Crisostomo
incurred contributory negligence for not checking her
travel documents. Caravan should reimburse
Crisostomo but with deductions due to her
contributory negligence

 .9. CA: Both parties were at fault.

 However, Crisostomo is more negligent because as a
lawyer and well-
traveled person, she should have known better than t
o simply rely on what was told to her. This being so, s
he is notentitled to any form of damages.
 10. Crisostomo appealed to SC.
 She contended that Caravan did not observe
the standard of care required of a common
carrier when it informed her wrongly of the
flight schedule. She could not be deemed
more negligent than Caravan since the latter
is required by law to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the fulfillment of its obligation
 . If she were negligent at all, the same is
merely contributory and not the proximate
cause of the damage she suffered
 Whether or not a travel agency is a common
carrier and is therefore required to exercise
extraordinary diligence.
 No, a travel agency is not an entity engaged
in the business of transporting either
passengers or goods and is therefore, neither
a private nor a common carrier.