G.R. No. 138334 - Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138334)

Factual Background — Contracting and Delivery of Documents

In May 1991 petitioner purchased and paid for a “Jewels of Europe” package tour from respondent at a total cost of P74,322.70 (with a 5% discount and waived booking fee). On 12 June 1991 Meriam Menor delivered petitioner’s travel documents and plane tickets and petitioner paid in full. Menor allegedly told petitioner to be at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on Saturday, two hours before the British Airways flight. Petitioner presented at NAIA on Saturday, 15 June 1991, only to discover that the flight had departed the previous day because her ticket showed a departure date of 14 June 1991.

Subsequent Transaction and Claim for Reimbursement

After the missed flight, Menor persuaded petitioner to take an alternative tour, the “British Pageant,” costing US$785.00 (P20,881.00 at the time). Petitioner made a partial payment of US$300.00 (P7,980.00) and commenced that tour in July 1991. Upon return petitioner demanded reimbursement of P61,421.70 as the difference between what she had paid for “Jewels of Europe” and the amount owed for “British Pageant”; respondent refused, asserting the amount was non‑refundable and that industry practice and remittance to the principal bar refund.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

Petitioner filed suit for breach of contract of carriage and damages (Civil Case No. 92‑133, RTC Makati, Branch 59). The trial court found respondent negligent in advising the wrong departure date through its employee Menor, but also found petitioner contributorily negligent for not reading the ticket and thus deducted 10% from the refund claim. The RTC ordered respondent to refund P53,989.43 with 12% legal interest from the filing date, awarded P5,000 for attorney’s fees, dismissed respondent’s counterclaim, and taxed costs against respondent.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It found both parties at fault but concluded petitioner was more negligent—reasoning that as a lawyer and well‑traveled person she should have confirmed the ticket rather than relying on oral representations. The CA denied petitioner damages, found she forfeited her right to the “Jewels of Europe” tour, and ordered her to pay respondent the P12,901.00 balance for the “British Pageant” tour. The CA deleted the award of attorney’s fees and imposed interest at 6% from filing of the counterclaim until finality, then 12% thereafter.

Issues Raised in the Petition to the Supreme Court

Petitioner’s Rule 45 petition raised three principal issues: (I) that the CA erred in holding her more negligent than respondent given the higher standard of diligence allegedly incumbent on common carriers; (II) that the “Jewels of Europe” tour fee was indivisible and refundable; and (III) that consequential damages should have been awarded for breach of contract of carriage.

Legal Characterization of the Parties’ Contract

The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the contract between petitioner and respondent. Relying on Article 1732 (definition of common carrier) and the parties’ actual undertaking, the Court held respondent was a travel agency that arranged booking, ticketing and accommodation, not an entity engaged in the business of transporting passengers. Consequently, the relation was an ordinary contract for services and not a contract of carriage. The classification of the contract determined the degree of diligence required of respondent.

Standard of Diligence Applicable

Because the contract was one for services (not carriage), the Court applied the ordinary standard of care: the diligence of a “good father of a family” under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, rather than the “extraordinary diligence” required of common carriers under Article 1755. The test becomes whether respondent used the reasonable care that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in similar circumstances.

Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Presumption Issues

The Supreme Court addressed the RTC’s reliance on petitioner’s uncontradicted testimony that Menor misinformed her. The RTC had invoked the disputable presumption under Rule 131, §3(e) that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. The Supreme Court held that presumption did not apply because Menor was not available to testify (she was working in France) and, importantly, the opportunity to produce her testimony was shared by both parties given her dual connection (respondent’s employee and petitioner’s niece). The Court reiterated that the party alleging a fact bears the burden of proving it and that

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138334)

Procedural Posture

Petition filed under Rule 45 to review the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 51932 affirming reversal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Makati City, Civil Case No. 92-133.
RTC rendered judgment ordering respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. to refund P53,989.43 with 12% legal interest from January 16, 1992, and awarded P5,000 attorney’s fees; counterclaim dismissed.
Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordered petitioner to pay P12,901.00 (balance for the British Pageant tour) with 6% interest from filing of counterclaim until finality and 12% thereafter; deleted award of attorney’s fees; costs against plaintiff-appellee.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied; petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court by petition for review.
Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, and ordered petitioner to pay P12,901.00 with legal interest at 6% per annum from counterclaim filing until finality and 12% thereafter until full payment.

Case Caption and Source

Reported as 456 Phil. 845, First Division, G.R. No. 138334, August 25, 2003.
Decision authored by Justice Ynares‑Santiago; concurrence by Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.
Record citations and references appear throughout the opinion (trial transcripts, RTC records, trial court and CA rolls).

Facts

In May 1991, petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. to arrange and facilitate booking, ticketing and accommodation in a package tour called "Jewels of Europe."
The "Jewels of Europe" package included England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and France; total cost P74,322.70.
Petitioner received a 5% discount; booking fee waived because petitioner’s niece, Meriam Menor, was Caravan’s ticketing manager.
Menor delivered petitioner’s travel documents and plane tickets to petitioner’s residence on Wednesday, June 12, 1991; petitioner paid in full at that time.
Menor allegedly told petitioner to be at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on Saturday, two hours before flight on British Airways; petitioner, without checking documents, went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, 1991, only to find the flight had departed the previous day.
Petitioner discovered her plane ticket was for June 14, 1991; she called Menor to complain.
Menor persuaded petitioner to take a different tour, "British Pageant" (England, Scotland, Wales); petitioner required to pay US$785.00 (P20,881.00 at P26.60 exchange rate); petitioner paid US$300.00 (P7,980.00) as partial payment and commenced the trip in July 1991.
Upon return, petitioner demanded reimbursement of P61,421.70 representing the difference between amount paid for "Jewels of Europe" and amount owed for "British Pageant"; respondent refused claiming non‑refundability.

Claims and Legal Theory by Petitioner

Petitioner sued for breach of contract of carriage and damages (Civil Case No. 92-133, RTC Makati Branch 59).
Alleged respondent’s fault for failing to clearly indicate departure date on plane ticket and negligent misrepresentation of flight schedule by Menor.
Contended "British Pageant" was merely a substitute for "Jewels of Europe" and cost of the former should be set off against amount paid for the latter.
Asserted respondent, as common carrier or under strict obligations in a contract of carriage, owed a higher standard of care; at most petitioner’s negligence was contributory, not superseding.

Defenses and Contentions by Respondent

Respondent, through Operations Manager Concepcion Chipeco, denied responsibility and insisted correct departure date was clearly and legibly printed on plane ticket and travel documents were delivered two days in advance.
Maintained petitioner failed to read or confirm flight schedule and thus was personally responsible for missing flight.
Argued respondent had remitted payment for "Jewels of Europe" to its principal Lotus Travel Ltd. in Singapore and refund could not be made as billing and industry practice disallowed refunds for individuals who failed to take a booked tour.
Contended "British Pageant" was an independent tour procured by petitioner after learning of her mistake; partial payment allowed because Menor was an employee and family relation; sought balance of P12,901.00.

Trial Court Findings and Judgment

Trial court found respondent negligent in erroneously advising petitioner of departure date through Menor, who was not presented as witness to rebut petitioner’s testimony.
Trial court deemed petitioner contributorily negligent for failing to verify ticket details and deducted 10% from claimed refund.
Ordered respondent to refund P53,989.43 with 12% legal interest from January 16, 1992, awarded attorney’s fees of P5,000, dismissed respondent’s counterclaim, and imposed costs against respondent.