Crisostomo v ca

CA, GR No. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the

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 is only diligence of a good father of a family. The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands. There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation and each case must be determined upon its particular facts. 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.

Crisostomo v ca

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. 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. Respondents services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours. 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 Estela L. The booking fee was also waived because petitioners niece, Meriam Menor, was respondents ticketing manager. On June 12, , Menor went to her aunts residence to deliver petitioners travel documents and planen tickets. In return, petitioner gave the full payment for the package tour. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA and to her 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,

Abella v. Alawi v.

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.

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. The administrative cases, which were filed with the Office of the President, were subsequently referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. Charges of violations of R. On June 14, , three 3 informations for violation of Sec.

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.

Flat to rent in swindon

Ynares- Santiago Doctrine: A travel agency is not a co. Crisostomo Vs CA - G. Crisostomo, Petitioner, vs. Teja Marketing v. The trial court held that respondent was negligent in erroneously advising petitioner of her departure date. Document Information click to expand document information transpo. Lastly, respondent maintained that the "British Pageant" was not a substitute for the package tour that petitioner missed. Smith, 37 Phil. Personal Growth Documents. Transpo Digest Transpo Digest. He cites the following examples: E. 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. Baculio G. Skip carousel. By virtue of said reinstatement, he is entitled to receive the salaries and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

What took place was a change in academic status of the educational institution, not in its corporate life. Hence the change in its name, the expansion of its curricular offerings, and the changes in its structure and organization.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals took into account the following:. Cases 1 To 10 Cases 1 To Paramount Insurance Corporation v. Search inside document. It is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court by ruling that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the cost of unavailed "Jewels of Europe" tour she being equally, if not more, negligent than the private respondent, for in the contract of carriage the common carrier is obliged to observe utmost care and extra-ordinary diligence which is higher in degree than the ordinary diligence required of the passenger. The cases filed before the Tanodbayan now the Ombudsman were likewise dismissed on August 8, on the ground that they had become moot and academic. Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration, 7 petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 45 on the following grounds:. 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. Close suggestions Search Search. This being so, she is not entitled to any form of damages. At most, respondent acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom petitioner ultimately contracted for Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the PCSC vs. It is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the