Case Digest (G.R. No. 188288)
Facts:
Spouses Fernando and Lourdes Viloria v. Continental Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
On July 21, 1997, Fernando Viloria purchased two round-trip Continental Airlines tickets (US$400 each) for himself and his wife, Lourdes Viloria, from a travel agency, Holiday Travel, through an attendant named Margaret Mager. The tickets were for travel from San Diego to Newark, scheduled August 13–21, 1997. Fernando later asked to reschedule to August 6; Mager told him Continental flights were fully booked and offered a pricier Frontier Air alternative. Fernando bought alternative train tickets from Amtrak after discovering seats were available and confronted Mager, who refused a refund on the ground that the Continental tickets were non-refundable but offered re-issuance within one or two years per Continental’s rules communicated later by letter.
After returning to the Philippines Fernando wrote Continental (February 11, 1998). Continental Micronesia replied (February 24, 1998) and, by letter dated March 24, 1998, declined a refund but stated non-refundable tickets could be reissued or applied toward new Continental tickets subject to re-issuance fees. In June 1999 Fernando attempted in Makati to have the tickets applied to a single round-trip to Los Angeles; he was told Lourdes’s ticket was non-transferable and that the fare then quoted was US$1,867.40, considerably higher than a newspaper advertisement he later produced for another carrier.
On September 8, 2000 the Spouses Viloria filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Antipolo City, seeking refund of the ticket purchase with interest and damages (P1,000,000 moral; P500,000 exemplary; P250,000 attorneys’ fees). The RTC, after trial, found Mager’s misrepresentation induced the purchase and characterized Mager as Continental’s agent; it awarded US$800 (or peso equivalent), plus interest, P100,000 moral damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, P40,000 attorneys’ fees and costs.
Continental Airlines, Inc. (CAI) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA (Special Thirteenth Division) reversed the RTC in a January 30, 2009 decision, holding petitioners failed to prove an agency relationship between Holiday Travel (or Mager) and Continental and that the transaction was a sale rather than an agency arrangement; it also upheld the non‑refundability and non‑transferability provisions on the tickets and concluded Contin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does a principal‑agent relationship exist between Continental Airlines, Inc. (CAI) and Holiday Travel?
- If an agency relationship exists, is CAI bound by the acts of Holiday Travel’s agents and employees (e.g., Mager)?
- If CAI is bound, was Mager’s representation regarding Amtrak’s availability a causal fraud sufficient to vitiate the Vilorias’ consent and annul the ticket contracts?
- Is CAI justified in insisting that the subject tickets are non‑transferable and non‑refundable?
- Is CAI justified in charging the higher price it demanded for the Los Angeles ticket, or alternatively, did i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)