Case Digest: Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 528, G.R. No. 138334

Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 528, G.R. No. 138334, August 25, 2003

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

In May 1991, Estela Crisostomo (Petitioner) contracted the services of Respondent Caravan Travel and tours International Inc. (Respondent) to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a tour dubbed as “Jewels of Europe.” The package tour included the countries of England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Liechstenstein, Switzerland and France at a total cost of P74, 322.70. Meriam Menor (Meriam), Respondent’s ticketing manager and Petitioner’s niece, went to the latter’s residence and delivered all her travel documents. Petitioner gave Menor the full payment of the package. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on Saturday, two hours before her flight on board British Airways. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, 1991, to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. To petitioner’s dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, 1991.

Menor prevailed upon Petitioner to take another tour, the “British Pageant,” which included England, Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. Upon Petitioner’s return, she demanded reimbursement for the difference between the sum paid in the “Jewels of Europe” package and the amount she paid for the “British Pageant” tour. Respondent declined. Petitioner filed a Complaint against Respondent for breach of contract of carriage and damages with the RTC of Makati City.

ISSUE

Whether or not a travel agency is a common carrier and is therefore required to exercise extraordinary diligence.

RULING

No, a travel agency is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier.

Under the law, a contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price.9 Such person or association of persons are regarded as carriers and are classified as private or special carriers and common or public carriers. A common carrier is person, corporation, firm or association 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.

In this case, it is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondent’s services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours. The object of petitioner’s contractual relation with respondent is the latter’s service of arranging and facilitating petitioner’s booking, ticketing and accommodation in the package tour. In contrast, the object of a contract of carriage is the transportation of passengers or goods. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one for services and not one of carriage. Petitioner’s submission is premised on a wrong assumption.