Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Crisostomo V CA 1

    Uploaded by

    Jack Bean
    A travel agency arranged a tour for a petitioner but provided the wrong flight information, causing the petitioner to miss her flight. The petitioner demanded reimbursement for the difference paid between the original and replacement tours. The travel agency refused, claiming the amount was non-refundable. The court ruled that the travel agency was not a common carrier as it does not transport passengers itself. As an agent of the airline, the travel agency's only obligation was to properly book the petitioner's flight. It did not have responsibility for her actual transportation. The petitioner's claim against the travel agency for breach of a common carrier's duty therefore had no merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Crisostomo V CA 1

    Uploaded by

    Jack Bean
    15 views1 page
    A travel agency arranged a tour for a petitioner but provided the wrong flight information, causing the petitioner to miss her flight. The petitioner demanded reimbursement for the difference paid between the original and replacement tours. The travel agency refused, claiming the amount was non-refundable. The court ruled that the travel agency was not a common carrier as it does not transport passengers itself. As an agent of the airline, the travel agency's only obligation was to properly book the petitioner's flight. It did not have responsibility for her actual transportation. The petitioner's claim against the travel agency for breach of a common carrier's duty therefore had no merit.

    Original Description:

    Crisostomo v CA

    Original Title

    Crisostomo v CA 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A travel agency arranged a tour for a petitioner but provided the wrong flight information, causing the petitioner to miss her flight. The petitioner demanded reimbursement for the difference paid between the original and replacement tours. The travel agency refused, claiming the amount was non-refundable. The court ruled that the travel agency was not a common carrier as it does not transport passengers itself. As an agent of the airline, the travel agency's only obligation was to properly book the petitioner's flight. It did not have responsibility for her actual transportation. The petitioner's claim against the travel agency for breach of a common carrier's duty therefore had no merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    Crisostomo V CA 1

    Uploaded by

    Jack Bean
    A travel agency arranged a tour for a petitioner but provided the wrong flight information, causing the petitioner to miss her flight. The petitioner demanded reimbursement for the difference paid between the original and replacement tours. The travel agency refused, claiming the amount was non-refundable. The court ruled that the travel agency was not a common carrier as it does not transport passengers itself. As an agent of the airline, the travel agency's only obligation was to properly book the petitioner's flight. It did not have responsibility for her actual transportation. The petitioner's claim against the travel agency for breach of a common carrier's duty therefore had no merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CRISOSTOMO v CA,

    Facts:
    petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc.
    to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a tour dubbed "Jewels of Europe".
    petitioner went to NAIA... to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. To petitioner's
    dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the... previous day.
    Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour - the "British Pageant"... petitioner was asked anew to pay
    Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of P61,421.70,
    representing the difference between the sum she paid for "Jewels of Europe" and the amount she owed
    respondent for the "British Pageant" tour. Despite several demands, respondent... company refused to reimburse
    the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable.
    Issues:
    Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it
    informed her wrongly of the flight schedule.
    Ruling:
    Petitioner's contention has no merit.
    respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore,
    neither a private nor a common carrier. 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.
    While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent company, this does not
    mean that the latter ipso facto is a common carrier. At most, respondent acted merely as an agent of the airline,
    with whom petitioner ultimately contracted for... her carriage to Europe. Respondent's obligation to petitioner in
    this regard was simply to see to it that petitioner was properly booked with the airline for the appointed date and
    time. Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the... airline.
    Principles:

    You might also like