Singson v. CA, G.R. No.
119995. Nov. 18, 1997
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
Carlos Singson, purchased a
round trip ticket from Cathay Pacific Airways, Inc. (Cathay) to the United
States. The ticket was open-dated, meaning that Singson could use it to travel
at any time.
Singson and his cousin left
Manila on June 6, 1988 and arrived safely in Los Angeles. They stayed in the
United States for three weeks and decided to return to the Philippines on July
1, 1988.
When Singson went to Cathay's
office to confirm his return flight reservation, he was informed that his
ticket was missing flight coupon No. 5. Cathay refused to confirm his
reservation without the missing coupon.
Singson explained to Cathay
that he had not used the missing coupon and that it must have been lost.
However, Cathay refused to listen to him. Singson was forced to purchase a new
ticket to the Philippines.
Singson filed a complaint
against Cathay for breach of contract of carriage. He alleged that Cathay had a
duty to transport him back to the Philippines, even if his ticket was missing a
coupon.
The trial court ruled in favor
of Singson and awarded him damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not a breach of
contract was committed by CATHAY when it failed to confirm the booking of
petitioner for its 1 July 1988 flight.
RULING
Yes, a breach of contract was
committed by CATHAY when it failed to confirm the booking of petitioner for its
1 July 1988 flight.
Under the law, a common
carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons,
with a due regard for all the circumstances.
In this case, CATHAY
undoubtedly committed a breach of contract when it refused to confirm
petitioner's flight reservation back to the Philippines on account of his
missing flight coupon. Its contention that there was no contract of carriage
that was breached because petitioner's ticket was open-dated is untenable. To
begin with, the round trip ticket issued by the carrier to the passenger was in
itself a complete written contract by and between the carrier and the
passenger. It has all the elements of a complete written contract. In fact, the
contract of carriage in the instant case was already partially executed as the
carrier complied with its obligation to transport the passenger to his destination,
i.e., Los Angeles. Only the performance of the other half of the contract —
which was to transport the passenger back to the Philippines — was left to be
done. Hence, petitioner was not a mere “chance passenger with no superior right
to be boarded on a specific flight,” as erroneously claimed by CATHAY. The loss of the coupon was attributed to the
negligence of CATHAY's agents and was the proximate cause of the
non-confirmation of petitioner's return flight on 1 July 1988. It virtually
prevented petitioner from demanding the fulfillment of the carrier's
obligations under the contract. To hold that no contractual breach was
committed by CATHAY and totally absolve it from any liability would in effect
put a premium on the negligence of its agent, contrary to the policy of the law
requiring common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment