Scribd
Upload
8 views1 page

Cristostomo vs. CA

The Supreme Court ruled that Caravan Travel & Tours was not negligent in informing Estela Crisostomo of her flight's departure date, as they are not classified as a common carrier but rather a service provider. Crisostomo's claim lacked corroborating evidence, and the ticket she received indicated the correct departure date. The court emphasized that proving negligence requires competent evidence, and mere allegations are insufficient in ordinary service contracts.

Uploaded by

NINA FRANCINE YU
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views1 page

Cristostomo vs. CA

The Supreme Court ruled that Caravan Travel & Tours was not negligent in informing Estela Crisostomo of her flight's departure date, as they are not classified as a common carrier but rather a service provider. Crisostomo's claim lacked corroborating evidence, and the ticket she received indicated the correct departure date. The court emphasized that proving negligence requires competent evidence, and mere allegations are insufficient in ordinary service contracts.

Uploaded by

NINA FRANCINE YU
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1)​ Cristostomo vs.

CA

GR 138334 25 August 2003 Topic: Proof of Negligence (ROC- Rule 131,


Sections 1, 2, and 3[d])

FACTS

Estela Crisostomo contracted Caravan Travel & Tours International, Inc. for a European tour
package called “Jewels of Europe.” She received a discount because her niece, Meriam
Menor, was Caravan’s ticketing manager. Menor delivered Crisostomo’s travel documents and
allegedly informed her that the flight was scheduled for Saturday, June 15, 1991. Relying on
this, Crisostomo went to NAIA on June 15, only to discover that the flight had already
departed on Friday, June 14.

As a result, she missed the tour. She later joined a different tour called “British Pageant” and
made a partial payment for it. Afterward, she demanded a refund for the missed “Jewels of
Europe” tour. When Caravan refused, Crisostomo filed a complaint for breach of contract and
damages.

ISSUE

WON Caravan was negligent in informing the petitioner of the wrong departure date, thereby
entitling her to damages.

RULING

NO, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent was not negligent.

Caravan is not a common carrier, but a provider of services (travel bookings, ticketing, and
tour arrangements). Therefore, the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers
does not apply. The Caravan was only required to exercise reasonable care – the diligence
of a good father of a family.

Negligence is determined by whether the defendant exercised the reasonable care that an
ordinarily prudent person would use in similar circumstances. The burden of proving
negligence rests on the petitioner.

In this case, the petitioner’s claim that Menor gave her the wrong flight date was
uncorroborated and unsupported by other evidence. The ticket indicated the correct departure
date, showing that Caravan exercised proper diligence.

A party alleging negligence must prove it with competent evidence. Uncorroborated


assertions or mere allegations are insufficient. In ordinary service contracts (not involving
common carriers), the standard of care is reasonable diligence, not extraordinary diligence.

You might also like