Crisostomo v ca

However, the petitioner missed her flight because the flight she was supposed to take had already departed from the previous day. The default standard of care crisostomo v ca only diligence of a good father of a family.

In May , petitioner Estela L. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, , to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, She thus called up Menor to complain. Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour — the "British Pageant" — which included England, Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. Despite several demands, respondent company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable.

Crisostomo v ca

CA, GR No. Menor went to her aunt's residence on June 12, - a Wednesday - to deliver petitioner's travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, She thus called up Menor to complain. Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour - the "British Pageant" Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of Petitioner was thus constrained to file a complaint against respondent for breach of contract of carriage and damages

Culture Documents. At most, respondent acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom petitioner ultimately contracted for

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 15, , the dispositive portion of which reads:. The questioned Orders and writs directing 1 "reinstatement" of respondent Isabelo T. Crisostomo to the position of "President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines", and 2 payment of "salaries and benefits" which said respondent failed to receive during his suspension insofar as such payment includes those accruing after the abolition of the PCC and its transfer to the PUP, are hereby set aside. Accordingly, further proceedings consistent with this decision may be taken by the court a quo to determine the correct amounts due and payable to said respondent by the said university. During his incumbency as president of the PCC, two administrative cases were filed against petitioner for illegal use of government vehicles, misappropriation of construction materials belonging to the college, oppression and harassment, grave misconduct, nepotism and dishonesty.

CA, GR No. Menor went to her aunt's residence on June 12, - a Wednesday - to deliver petitioner's travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14,

Crisostomo v ca

Pursuant to said contract, Menor went to her aunts residence on June 12, a Wednesday to deliver petitioners travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, , to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. To petitioners 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, She thus called up Menor to complain. Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour the "British Pageant" which included England, Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. Upon petitioners return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of P61, Despite several demands, respondent company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable. In her complaint,2 petitioner alleged that her failure to join "Jewels of Europe" was due to respondents fault since it did not clearly indicate the departure date on the plane ticket.

Fiber mesh subnautica

By definition, 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. 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. Case Digest, Pedro de Guzman vs. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another 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. ISSUE Whether or not respondent Caravan did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it informed the petitioner wrongly of the flight schedule. 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. Further proceedings in accordance with this decision may be taken by the trial court to determine the amount due and payable to petitioner by the university up to March 28, The degree of diligence required depends on the circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a question of fact that is to be determined after taking into account the particulars of each case. Mateo Jr. However, petitioner should have verified the exact date and time of The law does not state that the lands, buildings and equipment owned by the PCC were being "transferred" to the PUP but only that they "stand transferred" to it. Domingo, Et Al. Said decision set aside the orders and writ of reinstatement issued by the trial court.

Mobile No. CA Digest list Case Digest.

While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is 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. CA Facts Crisostomo v. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of the amounts due and payable to petitioner. Teja Marketing v. Said decision set aside the orders and writ of reinstatement issued by the trial court. Disputable presumptions. NO Respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency. United States of America vs. While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is a common carrier. 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.