MANAY Et Al vs. CEBU AIR, INC. GR No. 210621 April 4, 2016 Facts

Magnaye, Isaiah Athriene R Topic: Obligations of
the parties in Contract of carriage
18. MANAY et al vs. CEBU AIR, INC.

GR No. 210621
April 4, 2016
Leonen, J.
FACTS:
Carlos S. Jose purchased 20 Cebu Pacific round-trip tickets from Manila to Palawan for
himself and on behalf of his relatives and friends. Jose alleged that he specified to “Alou,”
the Cebu Pacific ticketing agent that his preferred date and time of departure from Manila
to Palawan should be on July 20, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. and that his preferred date and time
for their flight back to Manila should be on July 22, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. After paying for the
tickets, Alou printed the tickets, which consisted of three pages, and recapped only the first
page to him. Since the first page contained the details he specified to Alou, he no longer
read the other pages of the flight information. After their trip or on the afternoon of July 22,
2008, the group proceeded to the airport for their flight back to Manila. During the
processing of their boarding passes, they were informed by Cebu Pacific personnel that
nine of them could not be admitted because their tickets were for the 10:05 a.m. flight
earlier that day. Jose informed the ground personnel that he personally purchased the
tickets and specifically instructed the ticketing agent that all 20 of them should be on the
4:15 p.m. flight to Manila. Upon checking the tickets, they learned that only the first two
pages had the schedule Jose specified. They were left with no other option but to rebook
their tickets. They then learned that their return tickets had been purchased as part of the
promo sales of the airline, and the cost to rebook the flight would be ₱7,000.00 more
expensive than the promo tickets. The sum of the new tickets amounted to ₱65,000.00.
They offered to pay the amount by credit card but were informed by the ground personnel
that they only accepted cash. They then offered to pay in dollars, since most of them were
balikbayans and had the amount on hand, but the airline personnel still refused.
Eventually, they pooled enough cash to be able to buy tickets for five of their companions.
The other four were left behind in Palawan and had to spend the night at an inn, incurring
additional expenses. Upon his arrival in Manila, Jose immediately purchased four tickets
for the companions they left behind, which amounted to ₱5,205. Later in July 2008, Jose
went to Cebu Pacific’s ticketing office in Robinsons Galleria to complain about the
allegedly erroneous booking and the rude treatment that his group encountered from the
ground personnel in Palawan. Jose and his companions were unsatisfied with Cebu
Pacific’s response, so they filed a Complaint for Damages against Cebu Pacific before
Branch 59 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong. The Complaint prayed for
actual damages in the amount of ₱42,955.00, moral damages in the amount of
₱45,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00, and attorney’s fees. The
Metropolitan TC rendered its Decision ordering Cebu Pacific to pay Jose and his
companions ₱41,044.50 in actual damages and ₱20,000.00 in attorney’s fees with costs of
suit. Cebu Pacific appealed to the RTC, which was subsequently dismissed. Cebu Pacific
appealed to the CA, arguing that it was not at fault for the damages caused to the
passengers. On December 13, 2013, the CA rendered the Decision granting the appeal
and reversing the Decisions of the MeTC and the RTC. According to it, the extraordinary
diligence expected of common carriers only applies to the carriage of passengers and not
to the act of encoding the requested flight schedule. It was incumbent upon the passenger
to exercise ordinary care in reviewing flight details and checking schedules. Cebu Pacific’s
counterclaim, however, was denied since there was no evidence that Jose and his
companions filed their Complaint in bad faith and with malice.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cebu Air, Inc. is liable for damages for the issuance of a plane
ticket with an allegedly erroneous flight schedule.
RULING: No, Cebu Air, Inc. is not liable for damages for the issuance of a plane ticket with
an allegedly erroneous flight schedule. Common carriers are required to exercise
extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligations under the contract of carriage.
This extraordinary diligence must be observed not only in the transportation of goods and
services but also in the issuance of the contract of carriage, including its ticketing
operations. The obligation of the airline to exercise extraordinary diligence commences
upon the issuance of the contract of carriage. Ticketing, as the act of issuing the contract
of carriage, is necessarily included in the exercise of extraordinary diligence. Once a plane
ticket is issued, the common carrier binds itself to deliver the passenger safely on the date
and time stated in the ticket. The contractual obligation of the common carrier to the
passenger is governed principally by what is written on the contract of carriage. The
common carrier’s obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of the
contract of carriage is fulfilled by requiring a full review of the flight schedules to be given
to a prospective passenger before payment. Based on the information stated on the
contract of carriage, all three pages were recapped to petitioner Jose. The only evidence
petitioners have in order to prove their true intent of having the entire group on the 4:15
p.m. flight is petitioner Jose’s self-serving testimony that the airline failed to recap the last
page of the tickets to him. They have neither shown nor introduced any other evidence
before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, or this Court.
Even assuming that the ticketing agent encoded the incorrect flight information, it is
incumbent upon the purchaser of the tickets to at least check if all the information is
correct before making the purchase. Once the ticket is paid for and printed, the purchaser
is presumed to have agreed to all its terms and conditions. Considering that respondent
was entitled to deny check-in to passengers whose names do not match their photo
identification, it would have been prudent for petitioner Jose to check if all the names of his
companions were encoded correctly. Since the tickets were for 20 passengers, he was
expected to have checked each name on each page of the tickets in order to see if all the
passengers’ names were encoded and correctly spelled. Had he done this; he would have
noticed that there was a different flight schedule encoded on the third page of the tickets
since the flight schedule was stated directly above the passengers’ names. Moreover, the
tickets were issued 37 days before their departure from Manila and 39 days from their
departure from Palawan. There was more than enough time to correct any alleged mistake
in the flight schedule.
Petitioners, in failing to exercise the necessary care in the conduct of their affairs, were
without a doubt negligent. Thus, they are not entitled to damages.

MANAY Et Al vs. CEBU AIR, INC. GR No. 210621 April 4, 2016 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANAY Et Al vs. CEBU AIR, INC. GR No. 210621 April 4, 2016 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANAY Et Al vs. CEBU AIR, INC. GR No. 210621 April 4, 2016 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magnaye, Isaiah Athriene R Topic: Obligations of

the parties in Contract of carriage

18. MANAY et al vs. CEBU AIR, INC.

You might also like