Manay, Jr. v. Cebu Air, Inc., G.R. No.

210621, April 4, 2016

FACTS:
On June 13, 2008, Carlos S. Jose purchased 20 Cebu Pacific round-trip tickets from Manila to Palawan for
himself and on behalf of his relatives and friends in Robinsons Galleria. Jose alleged that he specified to "Alou," the
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.
He alleged that after paying for the tickets, Alou printed the tickets, which consisted of three (3) 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.
On July 20, 2008, Jose and his 19 companions boarded the 8:20am Cebu Pacific flight to Palawan and had
an enjoyable stay. 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 (9)
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 (2)
pages had the schedule Jose specified. They were left with no other option but to rebook their tickets. The sum of the
new tickets amounted to P65,000.00. 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 (5) of their companions. The other four (4) 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 (4) tickets for the companions they left behind, which amounted to P5,205.
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 frustrated and annoyed by Cebu Pacific's handling of the incident so they sent the airline
demand letters asking for a reimbursement of P42,955.00, representing the additional amounts spent to purchase the
nine (9) tickets, the accommodation, and meals of the four (4) that were left behind. [34] They also filed a
complaint[35] before the Department of Trade and Industry. In defense,  Cebu Pacific stated that according to its
records, Jose was given a full recap and was made aware of the flight restriction of promo tickets, [40] "which
included [the] promo fare being non-refundable.
Jose and his companions filed a Complaint for Damages against Cebu Pacific before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Mandaluyong.  Cebu Pacific essentially denied all the allegations in the Complaint and insisted that Jose
was given a full recap of the tickets. [It also argued that Jose had possession of the tickets 37 days before the
scheduled flight; hence, he had sufficient time and opportunity to check the flight information and itinerary.
The Metropolitan Trial Court rendered its Decision ordering Cebu Pacific to pay Jose and his companions
actual damages. Cebu Pacific appealed to the Regional Trial Court, reiterating that its ticketing agent gave Jose a
full recap of the tickets he purchased. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the findings of the Metropolitan Trial
Court. Cebu Pacific appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that it was not at fault for the damages caused to the
passengers. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered the Decision granting the appeal and reversing the Decisions
of the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court. According to the Court of Appeals, 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.[59] It was incumbent upon the passenger to exercise ordinary care in reviewing flight
details and checking schedules. [60] 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. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cebu Air is liable for damages to petitioners under the contract of carriage.
RULING:
No, Cebu Air is not liable for damages to petitioners under the contract of carriage. 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.
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. A contract of
carriage is defined as "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."
When a common carrier, through its ticketing agent, has not yet issued a ticket to the prospective
passenger, the transaction between them is still that of a seller and a buyer. 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. In this case, both parties stipulated that the flight schedule stated on
the nine (9) disputed tickets was the 10:05 a.m. flight of July 22, 2008. According to the contract of carriage,
respondent's obligation as a common carrier was to transport nine (9) of the petitioners safely on the 10:05 a.m.
flight of July 22, 2008. Petitioners, however, argue that respondent was negligent in the issuance of the contract of
carriage since the contract did not embody their intention. They insist that the nine (9) disputed tickets should have
been scheduled for the 4:15 p.m. flight of July 22, 2008. Respondent, on the other hand, denies this and states that
petitioner Jose was fully informed of the schedules of the purchased tickets and petitioners were negligent when they
failed to correct their ticket schedule.
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 (3) 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.
Contrary to petitioner's claim, the evidence on record shows that respondent exercised due diligence in
performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard procedure in rendering its services to petitioner.
As correctly observed by the lower court, the plane ticket issued to petitioner clearly reflected the departure date
and time, contrary to petitioner's contention. It is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as
well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour. Had petitioner exercised due diligence in
the conduct of her affairs, there would have been no reason for her to miss the flight. Needless to say, after the
travel papers were delivered to petitioner, it became incumbent upon her to take ordinary care of her concerns. This
undoubtedly would require that she at least read the documents in order to assure herself of the important details
regarding the trip.
Most of the petitioners were balikbayans. It is reasonable to presume that they were adequately versed with
the procedures of air travel, including familiarizing themselves with the itinerary before departure. Moreover, the
tickets were issued days before their departure from Manila and 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.
Before damages may be awarded, "the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of
damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts."
Before damages may be awarded, "the claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis
of damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts." The cause of petitioners' injury was their 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.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.