Title
Supreme Court
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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 2935)

Petitioner

Estela L. Crisostomo, a lawyer and well-traveled individual who paid ₱74,322.70 (less discount) for the “Jewels of Europe” package and an additional sum toward a substitute “British Pageant” tour.

Respondent

Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc., a travel agency acting as agent for airlines and tour operators in arranging ticketing, bookings, accommodations, and related services.

Key Dates

• May 1991 – Contract for “Jewels of Europe” concluded.
• June 12, 1991 – Travel documents and tickets delivered.
• June 14, 1991 – Actual departure date printed on ticket.
• June 15, 1991 – Petitioner’s missed flight.
• July 1991 – Commencement of “British Pageant” tour.
• August 25, 2003 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Civil Code Articles on contracts (1173 on diligence) and classification of carriers (1732); Rules of Court Rule 131, Section 3(e) on presumptions.

Facts

Petitioner relied on her niece’s verbal advice and missed the flight, discovering too late that the ticket bore the correct departure date. She then paid part of a new tour package and, upon her return, demanded a refund of the balance from the first tour. Caravan refused, citing industry practice of non-refundability once funds are remitted to foreign principals.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court found Caravan’s employee negligent under the presumption of suppressed evidence, but held petitioner contributorily negligent for failing to read her ticket. It ordered a refund of ₱53,989.43 (after 10% reduction), attorney’s fees, and dismissed Caravan’s counterclaim.

Court of Appeals Decision

The appellate court deemed petitioner more negligent, reversed the trial court, denied refund, deleted attorney’s fees award, and required petitioner to pay ₱12,901.00 balance for the substitute tour, with interest.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether Caravan, as a travel agency, is bound by the extraordinary diligence standard applicable to common carriers.
  2. Whether the “Jewels of Europe” tour cost was divisible and refundable.
  3. Whether petitioner was entitled to consequential damages for breach of contract of carriage.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Contract Nature – The agreement was for services, not carriage; Caravan is an agent, not a carrier, and owes the diligence of a “good father of a family,” not “utmost diligence.”
  2. Burden of Proof – Petitioner’s sole evidence of Meriam Menor’s negligence was uncorroborated testimony; no unfavorable presumption applied since Menor’s unavailability was not willful suppressio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.