Manay, Jr. vs. Cebu Air, Inc.

A common carrier's duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of contracts of carriage does not negate the passenger's correlative obligation to exercise ordinary diligence in reviewing the terms of the ticket before purchase; where the flight information is clearly printed and the passenger had ample opportunity to detect errors, the passenger's negligence in failing to verify the details precludes recovery of damages for alleged erroneous booking.

Carlos S. Jose purchased twenty round-trip tickets from Manila to Palawan for himself and his relatives and friends at a Cebu Pacific branch office in June 2008. He specified a departure time of 8:20 a.m. on July 20, 2008, and a return time of 4:15 p.m. on July 22, 2008. After paying with his credit card, the ticketing agent printed three pages of tickets and allegedly recapped only the first page to him. On July 22, 2008, when the group arrived at the airport for their supposed 4:15 p.m. flight, nine passengers were informed that their tickets were for the 10:05 a.m. flight that had already departed. The group was forced to rebook at a higher cost, with four members left behind in Palawan overnight. Jose subsequently filed a complaint for damages against Cebu Pacific before the Metropolitan Trial Court.

• On June 13, 2008, Carlos S. Jose purchased twenty round-trip tickets from Manila to Palawan for himself and his companions at Cebu Pacific's Robinsons Galleria branch, paying P42,957.00 via credit card.
• Jose specified to the ticketing agent that the preferred departure from Manila should be July 20, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. and the return from Palawan should be July 22, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.
• The tickets printed consisted of three pages. The first two pages contained the flight schedule Jose specified (4:15 p.m. return), but the third page, containing nine passengers, showed a return flight of July 22, 2008 at 10:05 a.m.
• Jose alleged that only the first page was recapped to him by the agent, and since it contained the correct details, he did not read the other pages.
• On July 20, 2008, the group boarded the 8:20 a.m. flight to Palawan without incident.
• On July 22, 2008, at the airport for their return, nine passengers were informed their tickets were for the 10:05 a.m. flight which had already departed.
• The group had to rebook the tickets at a cost of P65,000.00, significantly higher than the promo fare originally paid. The airline ground personnel allegedly refused credit card or dollar payments, accepting only cash.
• Only five of the nine could be accommodated; four were left behind in Palawan and had to spend the night at an inn, incurring additional expenses for accommodation and meals.
• Jose purchased four new tickets for the left-behind companions upon arrival in Manila for P5,205.00.
• Jose complained to Cebu Pacific's office but was allegedly given a "run around." Demand letters were sent on September 3, 2008 and January 20, 2009 seeking reimbursement of P42,955.00 for additional expenses.
• The tickets contained a "Comments" section stating "FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE" and indicated that promo fares were non-refundable.
• The tickets were issued 37 days before the departure from Manila and 39 days before the return flight from Palawan.

• Cebu Pacific, as a common carrier, is obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence not only in transporting passengers but also in issuing the contract of carriage, including the accurate encoding of flight schedules as instructed by the passenger.
• The ticketing agent was negligent in failing to inform Jose that nine members of the group were booked on a different flight (10:05 a.m.) instead of the 4:15 p.m. flight specified, and it was logical to expect that all 20 passengers would be on the same flight.
• Passengers are not obligated to remind airline agents of their duties or to request a full recap of tickets; the duty to provide accurate information rests solely with the carrier.
• The damage was caused by the airline's failure to exercise extraordinary diligence, not by any negligence on the part of the passengers.
• Prayer for increased actual damages to P43,136.52, plus P100,000.00 moral damages, P100,000.00 exemplary damages, and P100,000.00 attorney's fees for the distress and anxiety suffered.

• The damage was caused by the petitioners' "gross and inexplicable negligence" in failing to read the flight details printed on their tickets, which clearly indicated the 10:05 a.m. schedule for the nine passengers.
• The ticketing agent provided a full recap of all tickets, as evidenced by the notation "FULL RECAP GVN TO CARLOS JOSE" on all three pages of the tickets.
• Under the Parol Evidence Rule, the written tickets constitute the best evidence of the terms agreed upon by the parties, and petitioners failed to present evidence that their true intent was the 4:15 p.m. flight.
• Petitioners had possession of the tickets for 37 days before departure, providing ample time and opportunity to verify the flight information and correct any errors.
• As a contract of adhesion, the passenger is bound by the terms of the ticket once accepted, and the passenger has the duty to exercise ordinary diligence in reviewing the contract terms.

• Procedural: Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed within the reglementary period considering the computation of the extension of time when the last day of the period falls on a Saturday.
• Substantive Issues: Whether Cebu Air, Inc. is liable to petitioners for damages for the issuance of plane tickets with an allegedly erroneous flight schedule, or whether the petitioners' own negligence bars recovery.

• Procedural: Strictly applying A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC, the petition would be considered filed out of time because the 15-day period expired on January 11, 2014 (Saturday), and the 30-day extension requested should be reckoned from January 11, not the next working day (January 13), making the deadline February 10, 2014, whereas the petition was filed on February 12, 2014. However, the Court exercised its discretion to relax procedural rules and decide the case on the merits, citing the principle that litigations should be decided on the merits rather than technicalities.
• Substantive: The Court held that while common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence in the issuance of contracts of carriage, this duty is fulfilled by requiring a full review of flight schedules before payment. Once the ticket is issued and paid for, the passenger is presumed to have agreed to its terms. The flight information was clearly printed on the tickets, and petitioners had 37 days to review them. Their failure to exercise ordinary diligence in verifying the flight details—despite being experienced travelers (balikbayans) and despite the logical expectation that they would check names and details for a group of 20—constituted negligence that was the proximate cause of their injury. Therefore, Cebu Pacific is not liable for damages.

• Extraordinary Diligence of Common Carriers — Defined as the "utmost diligence of very cautious persons" required of common carriers from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, extending not only to the transportation of passengers but also to the issuance of the contract of carriage, including ticketing operations. Applied to hold that the carrier must ensure accurate information is provided before payment, but the duty is discharged when the ticket clearly states the terms and the passenger has opportunity to review.
• Contract of Adhesion — Defined as a contract where one party imposes a ready-made form on the other, which is not entirely prohibited but binds the adhering party who has the freedom to reject it entirely. Applied to hold that passengers are bound by the terms of airline tickets once purchased, but the Air Passenger Bill of Rights mandates that airlines must inform passengers in writing of all conditions and restrictions.
• Correlative Obligation of Passengers — The principle that while airlines must exercise extraordinary diligence, passengers have a correlative obligation to exercise ordinary diligence in the conduct of their affairs, including reviewing flight documents and verifying schedules before travel. Applied to bar recovery where the passenger's own negligence caused the injury.
• Parol Evidence Rule Exception — Under Rule 130, Section 9(b) of the Rules of Court, evidence may be presented to show the failure of a written agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Applied to consider petitioners' claim that the tickets did not reflect their true intent, but rejected because petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate their allegation of the intended 4:15 p.m. flight.

• "Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities." — Used to justify relaxing the procedural rule regarding the computation of extension of time to decide the case on the merits.
• "The airline must exercise extraordinary diligence in the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage. The passenger, however, has the correlative obligation to exercise ordinary diligence in the conduct of his or her affairs." — Establishing the mutual obligations of carriers and passengers.
• "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." — Cited from Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals and applied to emphasize the passenger's duty to review travel documents.
• "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." — Clarifying that the written terms of the ticket govern the contractual relationship.

• Cathay Pacific Airways v. Reyes — Cited for the principle that when an airline issues a ticket confirmed on a particular flight, a contract of carriage arises and the passenger has every right to expect to fly on that flight; used to establish that the written ticket terms govern the contractual obligations.
• Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals — Cited to establish that passengers have a duty to exercise ordinary diligence in reviewing their travel documents and that failure to do so precludes recovery of damages; distinguished as involving a travel agency (not a common carrier) but applied for the principle of passenger diligence.
• Ong Yiu v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that passengers are bound by provisions of plane tickets as contracts of adhesion, and that lack of knowledge or assent to regulations does not invalidate them.
• ACI Philippines, Inc. v. Coquia — Cited for the principle that written documents are the best evidence of their contents, but exceptions exist under the Parol Evidence Rule when the written agreement fails to express true intent.
• Montajes v. People — Cited for the principle that litigations should be decided on the merits rather than technicalities, supporting the relaxation of procedural rules.

• Civil Code Article 1732 — Definition of common carriers; relevance: establishes Cebu Pacific's status as a common carrier subject to extraordinary diligence requirements.
• Civil Code Article 1733 — Extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in vigilance over goods and safety of passengers; relevance: basis for the duty of care in issuing tickets.
• Civil Code Article 1755 — Duty of common carriers to carry passengers safely using utmost diligence of very cautious persons; relevance: standard of care applied to the contract of carriage.
• Civil Code Article 2208 — Conditions for recovery of attorney's fees; relevance: cited by RTC to delete award of attorney's fees for lack of justification.
• Civil Code Article 2234 — Requirement that plaintiff show entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before exemplary damages may be awarded; relevance: basis for denying exemplary damages when moral damages were not established.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 2 — Period for filing petitions for review on certiorari and extensions; relevance: procedural basis for determining the timeliness of the petition.
• Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 9 — Parol Evidence Rule and exceptions; relevance: basis for considering evidence of true intent despite the written contract.
• A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC — Computation of time when last day falls on Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday; relevance: procedural rule applied to determine that the petition was technically filed out of time.
• DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2012 (Air Passenger Bill of Rights), Section 4 — Right to full disclosure of terms and conditions of contract of carriage; relevance: establishes airline's duty to inform passengers of restrictions, but acknowledges the contract of adhesion nature of airline tickets.