G.R. No. 210621 - Manay, Jr. vs. Cebu Air, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210621)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Purchase of tickets: June 13, 2008.
Lower court decisions: Metropolitan Trial Court decision (December 15, 2011) awarded actual damages and attorney’s fees; Regional Trial Court affirmed but deleted attorney’s fees (November 6, 2012).
Court of Appeals decision: reversed lower courts and dismissed the complaint (December 13, 2013).
Supreme Court action: petition for review on certiorari filed; Supreme Court denied the petition (decision rendered April 4, 2016). Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post-1990).

Factual Background

Carlos S. Jose purchased twenty round-trip tickets for a group for travel July 20–22, 2008, specifying a return at 16:15 (4:15 p.m.). He paid by credit card; tickets printed in a three-page set. Jose testified he was recapped only the first page and did not read the remaining pages. On July 22, at check-in in Palawan, nine passengers were informed their tickets were for the 10:05 a.m. flight and were denied boarding for the intended 16:15 flight. The group rebooked as many tickets as cash on hand permitted, leaving four behind overnight; Jose later bought four separate tickets upon returning to Manila. Petitioners sent demand letters and filed administrative complaints before DTI and a civil complaint for damages.

Claims, Reliefs Sought, and Respondent’s Defense

Petitioners sought actual damages for additional ticket costs and incidental expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Cebu Pacific denied negligence, asserted its ticketing protocol included a full recap (twice: by the ticketing agent and by the cashier), relied on the printed tickets as the definitive contract of carriage, and counterclaimed for litigation expenses. Cebu Pacific pointed to the tickets’ “Comments” entries indicating “FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE” and urged application of the Parol Evidence Rule.

Lower Courts’ Findings

Metropolitan Trial Court: Found Cebu Pacific, as a common carrier, failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in ticket issuance; the ticketing agent should have marked or emphasized the departure times for the nine misbooked passengers. Ordered payment of actual damages and attorney’s fees.
Regional Trial Court: Affirmed factual findings but deleted attorney’s fees for lack of stated legal ground.

Court of Appeals Rationale

The Court of Appeals held that the extraordinary diligence standard applicable to common carriers pertains to carriage of passengers (physical transport) but not to the encoding or clerical act of ticket issuance. The CA placed the burden on passengers to exercise ordinary care in reviewing flight details and concluded petitioners failed to do so. It denied Cebu Pacific’s counterclaim for lack of evidence of bad faith.

Procedural Issue Before the Supreme Court

The petitioners filed for extension and then filed the petition for review slightly beyond computed deadline. The Supreme Court noted the computation rules (Rule 45; A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC) and, in the interest of resolving on the merits where possible, entertained the petition despite procedural irregularity. The Court emphasized that relaxation of procedural rules does not entitle the petitioner to relief on merits without satisfying substantive requirements.

Legal Framework Applied

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (governing framework given decision date).
Civil Code: definitions and standards on common carriers — Arts. 1732, 1733, 1755, 1756 — imposing a duty of extraordinary diligence on common carriers.
Contract of carriage principle: issuance of a ticket creates a binding contract; passenger may expect to be carried on the date/time in the ticket.
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 9(b): exception to the Parol Evidence Rule permitting extrinsic evidence where the written agreement fails to express the true intent of the parties.
DOTC–DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1 (2012) — the Air Passenger Bill of Rights: requires full, fair, and clear disclosure of terms and conditions of the contract of carriage before purchase, including prominent disclosure of restrictions and rebooking/refund rules, and mandates verbal explanation of key limitations.

Supreme Court’s Analytical Findings on Merits

Scope of extraordinary diligence: The Court reiterated that extraordinary diligence required of common carriers covers issuance of the contract of carriage, including ticketing operations; an airline’s duty begins upon issuance of the ticket.
Contractual terms control: The ticket is the primary evidence of the parties’ agreement. The nine disputed tickets, as printed, reflected the 10:05 a.m. flight; the written contracts therefore bound the parties to those schedules.
Parol Evidence and Rule 130(9)(b): Petitioners sought to introduce evidence to show the written tickets did not reflect their true intent. The Court required competent evidence showing the written instrument failed to express the parties’ true agreement. Petitioners’ proof consisted only of Jose’s self-serving testimony that only the first page was recapped; no other corroborating evidence was produced.
Passenger’s correlative duty of ordinary diligence: The Court emphasized the correlative duty of a passenger to exercise ordinary diligence — to read and verify ticket details upon issuance and within the ample period available (tickets were issued 37 days before departure). Given the clear placement of flight information on each page and the explicit “Comments” entries, the Court found the passenger should have noticed the discrepancy and had sufficient time to

...

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210621)

Core Holding

The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED; the petitioners are not entitled to recover damages from respondent Cebu Air, Inc. (Cebu Pacific).
The Court reiterates that common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence in issuing contracts of carriage, including ticketing operations, but passengers have the correlative duty to exercise ordinary diligence in reviewing ticket information.
The airline must inform passengers in writing of all conditions and restrictions in the contract of carriage, pursuant to the Air Passenger Bill of Rights, but this duty does not absolve passengers from checking the contract of carriage before purchase.

Case Caption and Source

Reported in 783 Phil. 659, Second Division, G.R. No. 210621, decided April 4, 2016; Decision penned by Justice Leonen, with Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concurring.
Parties: Petitioners — Alfredo Manay, Jr., Fidelino San Luis, Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis, Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose, Charlotte Jose, Dan John De Guzman, Paul Mark Baluyot, and Carlos S. Jose; Respondent — Cebu Air, Inc. (doing business as Cebu Pacific).

Procedural Posture and History

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages before Branch 59, Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Mandaluyong; MTC rendered Decision on December 15, 2011 ordering Cebu Pacific to pay P41,044.50 in actual damages and P20,000.00 in attorney’s fees with costs of suit.
Cebu Pacific appealed to Branch 212, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong; RTC rendered Decision on November 6, 2012 dismissing the appeal and affirming MTC findings but deleting attorney’s fees for lack of Article 2208 ground.
Cebu Pacific appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); CA, in a Decision dated December 13, 2013, granted the appeal and reversed the MTC and RTC decisions, holding that extraordinary diligence for common carriers applies to carriage of passengers but not to encoding of flight schedules, and that passengers must exercise ordinary care in reviewing flight details.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the CA Decision; petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time and the Court addressed a procedural computation issue before reaching the merits.

Procedural Computation Issue (timeliness)

Petitioners received CA Decision on December 27, 2013 and had 15 days under Rule 45, Section 2 to file a petition, making the deadline January 11, 2014 (a Saturday), which under Rule 22 allows filing on next working day, Monday January 13, 2014.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Extension on January 13, 2014 requesting 30 additional days from that date; the Court clarified via A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC that a granted extension is reckoned from the original expiration date (January 11, 2014) even if falling on a Saturday, so a 30-day extension would have ended February 10, 2014.
Petitioners filed the Petition on February 12, 2014; under the cited guidance this would have been filed out of time, but the Court exercised discretion to entertain the petition on the merits because litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities — while preserving that the petition must still stand on substantive grounds.

Material Facts and Chronology

June 13, 2008: Carlos S. Jose purchased 20 round-trip Cebu Pacific tickets Manila–Palawan–Manila at Cebu Pacific’s Robinsons Galleria branch, paying P42,957.00 by credit card.
Jose allegedly instructed ticketing agent “Alou” that outbound flight should be July 20, 2008 at 08:20 (5J637) and return on July 22, 2008 at 16:15 (5J640).
Tickets printed comprised three pages; Jose claims only the first page was recapped to him and so he did not read the other pages.
July 20, 2008: Jose and group boarded the 08:20 flight to Palawan; they stayed and returned to the airport on July 22, 2008 for their return flight.
During boarding-pass processing on July 22, airport personnel informed the group that nine of them could not be admitted because their tickets showed the 10:05 a.m. flight (PH 5J638) on that day instead of the 16:15 flight.
Jose protested he had instructed 16:15 to the ticketing agent; on inspection it was found only the first two pages of the tickets bore the 16:15 time; the third page bore 10:05.
They were forced to rebook; promo fares were non-refundable and rebooking cost about P7,000 more per ticket; new tickets amounted to about P65,000.
Ground personnel initially accepted only cash; petitioners pooled cash to buy tickets for five companions; four remained in Palawan overnight, incurring accommodation and meal expenses.
Jose later purchased four tickets upon return to Manila for P5,205.00 to bring those left behind home.
Jose and companions sent demand letters (Sept. 3, 2008 and Jan. 20, 2009) seeking reimbursement of P42,955.00 for additional ticket costs, accommodation, and meals; they filed complaint with Department of Trade and Industry and later filed civil complaint for damages.

Pleadings and Claims

Petitioners sought actual damages of P42,955.00 (later petitioned for P43,136.52 to include certain accommodation and dinner costs), moral damages (P100,000.00), exemplary damages (P100,000.00), and attorney’s fees (P100,000.00).
Cebu Pacific denied allegations, insisted Jose received full recap, argued Jose had possession of tickets 37 days prior and had ample opportunity to check and correct errors, and filed a counterclaim of P100,000.00 for litigation expenses (which the courts found lacked evidence of