Crisostomo v.

CA
G.R. No. 138334 | 25 August 2003 | Ynares-Santiago, J.
Aggy

Doctrine:
The nature of the contractual relation between the obligee and the obligor is determinative of the degree of
care required in the performance of the latter’s obligation.

For contract of carriage – common carrier expected to observe extraordinary diligence.

For ordinary obligations – standard is that of a good father of a family (Article 1173 of Civil Code)

Facts:
1. Estela Crisostomo (petitioner) availed the services of Caravan Travel & Tours (respondent) to arrange
and facilitate her booking, ticketing, and accommodation in a Europe Tour called “Jewels of Europe”
2. Crisostomo was given a 5% discount and her booking fee was also waived because Caravan’s
ticketing manager was her niece (Menor).
3. Menor went to Crisostomo and gave her the plane ticket which reflected her flight schedule.
Crisostomo claims that Menor informed her that her flight was on July 15, 1991, a Saturday.
Crisostomo paid the tour in full.
4. Crisostomo went to NAIA on Saturday, without checking her plane ticket, and she found out that her
scheduled flight was a day earlier (July 14). Menor, then, suggested that she take another tour—The
British Pageant. Crisostomo agreed and made a partial payment.
5. When Crisostomo returned, she demanded from Caravan Travel & Tours the difference between the
sum she paid for the first tour and the balance she owed to respondent from the second tour. Caravan
refused to reimburse Crisostomo.
6. Crisostomo contends that Caravan should have observed utmost care and extraordinary diligence
expected of common carriers since their contract was that of carriage.
7. RTC ruled in favor of Crisostomo, but held that she had contributory negligence. But CA reversed the
decision holding that though both are negligent but more on Crisostomo’s part, thus, Caravan is not
liable for damages.

Issue/s:
1. W/N respondent is liable for damages for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence expected of
common carriers in performing its obligations – NO.

Holding:

SC held that Caravan Travel and Tours International Inc. is NOT a common carrier contemplated
under Article 1732 of the Civil Code since it is not engaged in the business of transporting either
passengers or goods. Its covenant is simply to make travel arrangements in behalf of their customers.

Thus, the contractual relation between Caravan Travel and Tours and Crisostomo is that of an ordinary
one for services. The standard care for such obligation is that of a good father of a family (Article 1163
& 1173 of CC). This connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person
would have observed when confronted with a similar situation.

The facts of the case show that Caravan exercised due diligence in performing its obligation and that it
was Crisostomo who was negligent as she failed to check the date of her flight which was clearly reflected
in her plane ticket.
Ruling:
Petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the amount
of P12,901.00 representing the balance of the price of the British Pageant Tour, with legal interest of 6%
per annum.

Relevant Provisions:
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When
negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected
of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)

Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying
or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the
public.

Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to
observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745,
Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755
and 1756.