Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007)
Procedural Requirement: Timeliness of Petition
Petitioners filed their certiorari petition on Feb. 12, 2014—beyond the 15-day period plus IP extension reckoned from Jan. 11, 2014. The SC, invoking A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC, relaxed dismissal on technicality and proceeded to address the merits.
Contract of Carriage and Common-Carrier Diligence
Under Civil Code Arts. 1732–1756, airlines are common carriers bound to exercise extraordinary diligence from issuance of the contract of carriage. Ticketing, as issuance of that contract, must also be governed by utmost care to ensure accuracy of flight schedules and conditions.
Parol Evidence Rule and True Intent Exception
Cebu Pacific relied on the Parol Evidence Rule to uphold the printed schedule as conclusive. Petitioners invoked Rule 130 § 9(b), asserting that the written tickets failed to express their true intent to have all 20 passengers on the 16:15 return flight.
Factual Findings on Ticket Recap and Passenger Obligation
Tickets comprised three pages: the third page showed a 10:05 return flight for nine passengers. Cebu Pacific’s protocol required a full verbal recap twice. Petitioners presented only Jose’s uncorroborated claim that the last page was not recapped. The SC held that once paid and printed, tickets embody a binding adhesion contract, and purchasers bear the duty of ordinary diligence to review all pages—especially given photo-ID checks and the clear print of flight times adjacent to names.
Passenger’s Negligence and Absence of Causal Link
The Court found petitioners negligent for failing to inspect the printed schedules, despite 37 days to correct any error and the conspicuous placement of flight times on each page. Their own negligence was the proximate cause of damages, precluding recovery of actual, moral, or exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
Air Passenger Bill of Rights and Contract Disclosure
The 2012 Air Passenger Bill of Rights mandates full, fair, and clear dis
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007)
Facts of the Case
- On June 13, 2008, Carlos S. Jose purchased twenty round-trip Cebu Pacific tickets (Manila–Palawan–Manila) at Robinsons Galleria branch, specifying departure on July 20 at 08:20 and return on July 22 at 16:15.
- Jose paid ₱42,957.00 by credit card; the agent (“Alou”) printed three-page tickets but allegedly recapped only the first page to him.
- On July 20, the entire party flew to Palawan without incident. On July 22, during check-in, nine passengers learned their return tickets were booked for the 10:05 flight, not the 16:15 flight.
- The group rebooked seats at a higher cost (₱7,000.00 more per ticket), paid partly in cash, and left four companions overnight in Palawan, incurring lodging and meal expenses.
- Upon return to Manila, Jose bought four additional tickets for ₱5,205.00. He later lodged complaints with Cebu Pacific in July 2008 and sent demand letters on September 3, 2008, and January 20, 2009.
- They filed a Department of Trade and Industry complaint; Cebu Pacific’s Guest Services responded by email on February 24, 2009, asserting full recaps were given and reminding Jose of promo-fare restrictions.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages in the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 59, Mandaluyong), praying for actual damages (₱42,955.00), moral damages (₱45,000.00), exemplary damages (₱50,000.00), and attorney’s fees.
- Cebu Pacific denied liability, counterclaimed ₱100,000.00 for litigation expenses, and insisted full recaps were provided and Jose had ample time (37 days) to verify tickets.
- MTC Decision (Dec. 15, 2011): Awarded ₱41,044.50 actual damages and ₱20,000.00 attorney’s fees; found extraordinary diligence required of common carriers and that the agent should have highlighted the different schedule.
- RTC Decision (Nov. 6, 2012): Affirmed MTC judgment but deleted attorney’s fees for lack of statutory basis.
- Court of Appeals Decision (Dec. 13, 2013): Reversed lower courts, holding extrao