Title
Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 138334
Decision Date
Aug 25, 2003
Petitioner missed her flight due to incorrect verbal instructions, sued for refund and damages. Court ruled no breach; petitioner’s negligence barred claims, owed balance for substitute tour.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 188260)

Facts:

  • Contract for “Jewels of Europe” tour
    • In May 1991, petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo engaged Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. to arrange a “Jewels of Europe” package tour covering England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and France for a total of ₱74,322.70.
    • Petitioner received a 5% discount, waived booking fee (through her niece Meriam Menor, Caravan’s ticketing manager), and paid the full discounted amount upon receipt of travel documents.
  • Missed flight and substitute arrangement
    • On June 12, 1991, Menor delivered petitioner’s tickets and itinerary, advising her to report to NAIA on June 15 for a British Airways flight to Hong Kong. Without checking the tickets, petitioner arrived on June 15 only to find the flight had departed on June 14 as printed on her ticket.
    • Menor then offered petitioner a different package, the “British Pageant” tour (England, Scotland, Wales) costing US$785 (₱20,881). Petitioner paid US$300 (₱7,980) as partial payment and commenced that tour in July 1991.
  • Judicial proceedings
    • Petitioner filed Civil Case No. 92-133 for breach of contract of carriage and damages, seeking reimbursement of ₱61,421.70 (difference between the two tours).
    • The Regional Trial Court (Branch 59, Makati) found respondent negligent in misinforming departure date, but also held petitioner contributorily negligent (10% deduction). It ordered refund of ₱53,989.43 with 12% interest from filing date, awarded ₱5,000 attorney’s fees, and dismissed the counterclaim.
    • The Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioner more negligent (as a lawyer and experienced traveler) and thus denied any refund. It ordered petitioner to pay the remaining ₱12,901 for the “British Pageant” tour with 6% interest from counterclaim filing, and 12% thereafter; attorney’s fees award was deleted.
    • Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration denied; she filed a Rule 45 petition raising:
      • Error in holding her equally or more negligent than respondent (common-carrier standard of extraordinary diligence applies).
      • Error in denying that the “Jewels of Europe” tour price was divisible and refundable.
      • Error in refusing consequential damages for breach of contract of carriage.

Issues:

  • Did the Court of Appeals err in finding petitioner more negligent than respondent and denying her refund?
  • Is the “Jewels of Europe” tour contract divisible such that unavailed portions are refundable?
  • Should consequential damages be awarded for breach of contract of carriage?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.