View full case

ALFREDO MANAY v. CEBU AIR

FACTS:

Carlos S. Jose purchased 20 Cebu Pacific round-trip tickets from Manila to Palawan for himself and his relatives and friends. He specified to the ticketing agent their preferred date and time of departure and flight back to Manila. However, when they went to the airport, nine of them were not admitted due to an earlier flight schedule on their tickets. They were forced to rebook their tickets, incurring additional costs. Jose filed a complaint against Cebu Pacific for damages.

Jose and his companions filed a complaint against Cebu Pacific for damages. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in their favor, ordering Cebu Pacific to pay actual damages and attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision but deleted the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals granted Cebu Pacific's appeal, reversing the lower court's decisions. Jose and his companions filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning Cebu Pacific's liability for damages.

The petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time to request an additional 30 days to file their petition for review on certiorari. However, they filed their petition two days after the extended deadline. Although filed out of time, the Supreme Court considered hearing the merits of the petition rather than dismissing it solely on technical grounds.

The case involved a common carrier, Cebu Pacific, which is required by law to exercise extraordinary diligence in both transportation and ticketing operations. Common carriers are presumed to be at fault or negligent in cases of death or injuries to passengers, unless they can prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence as required by law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the airline, as a common carrier, exercised extraordinary diligence in the issuance of the contract of carriage.

  2. Whether the disputed tickets should have been scheduled for a different flight.

  3. Whether or not the ticketing agent was negligent in failing to inform or explain to the petitioner the different flight schedules for the group.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions stated on the tickets.

  5. Whether or not the petitioner had a duty to exercise ordinary care in checking the information on the tickets.

  6. Whether or not the travel agency is liable for damages based on the alleged negligence of their travel agent in informing the plaintiff of the wrong flight details.

  7. Whether or not the plaintiff exercised due diligence and ordinary care in handling her travel documents.

  8. Whether the airline has the duty to fully disclose the conditions and restrictions attached to the air carrier ticket to the passenger.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the airline, as a common carrier, is required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of the contract of carriage, including its ticketing operations.

  2. The disputed tickets were scheduled for the 10:05 a.m. flight of July 22, 2008, as clearly stated in the contract of carriage. Petitioners' argument that the tickets should have been scheduled for the 4:15 p.m. flight is without merit. Respondent was not negligent in the issuance of the tickets.

  3. The Court ruled that the ticketing agent was not negligent. The flight information was recapped twice to the purchaser before payment, and all three pages of the tickets were recapped to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to present any evidence other than his self-serving testimony to prove that the airline failed to recap the last page of the tickets. Furthermore, once the ticket is paid for and printed, the purchaser is deemed to have agreed to all its terms and conditions.

  4. The Court held that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions stated on the tickets. Even though the petitioner did not sign the plane ticket, he is still bound by its provisions, as they are considered part of the contract of carriage. Contracts of adhesion, wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other, are valid and binding as long as the adhering party has the freedom to reject the contract entirely.

  5. The Court ruled that the petitioner had a duty to exercise ordinary care in checking the information on the tickets. The flight schedule was clearly stated above the passengers' names and was not written in fine print. The petitioner should have checked each name on each page of the tickets to ensure that all the passengers' names were encoded correctly. The airline was entitled to deny check-in to passengers whose names did not match their photo identification.

  6. The travel agency is not liable for damages as it exercised due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard procedure in rendering its services to the plaintiff.

  7. The plaintiff did not exercise due diligence and ordinary care in handling her travel documents, therefore she is not entitled to damages.

  8. The duty of an airline to disclose all the necessary information in the contract of carriage does not remove the correlative obligation of the passenger to exercise ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs. The passenger is still expected to read through the flight information in the contract of carriage before making his or her purchase. If he or she fails to exercise the ordinary diligence expected of passengers, any resulting damage should be borne by the passenger.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their obligations under the contract of carriage. This includes the issuance of the contract of carriage, including its ticketing operations. (Article 1732 of the Civil Code)

  • A contract of carriage arises when an airline issues a ticket to a confirmed passenger for a specific flight on a specific date. The airline is obligated to transport the passenger on that flight and on that date. (Cathay Pacific Airways v. Reyes)

  • The terms of an agreement that have been reduced to writing are considered as containing all the terms agreed upon, and there can be no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. However, evidence may be introduced if the written document fails to express the true intent of the parties. (Rule 130, Section 9(b) of the Rules of Court)

  • Common carriers have the obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of the contract of carriage.

  • Contracts of adhesion, wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other, are valid and binding as long as the adhering party has the freedom to reject the contract entirely.

  • Passengers have a duty to exercise ordinary care in checking the information on their tickets.

  • A travel agency is not a common carrier and is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligations.

  • The passenger has a duty to exercise due diligence and ordinary care in handling travel documents. negligence on the part of the passenger may preclude recovery of damages.

  • Before damages may be awarded, the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of damages and its causal connection to the defendant's acts.

  • The cause of the claimant's injury was her own negligence, hence there is no reason to award moral damages.

  • Since the basis for moral damages has not been established, there is no basis to recover exemplary damages and attorney's fees as well.

  • The Air Passenger Bill of Rights requires airlines to provide passengers with accurate information before the purchase of the ticket.

  • A contract of carriage is a contract of adhesion, and all conditions and restrictions must be fully explained to the passenger before the purchase of the ticket.

  • The airline is obligated to place in writing all the conditions it will impose on the passenger.

  • While the airline has the duty to disclose all necessary information, the passenger also has a duty to exercise ordinary diligence and read through the contract of carriage before making a purchase.