Travel Agency Liability: Ordinary Care, Not Common Carrier Duties

In a 2003 decision, the Supreme Court settled an important question for travelers and travel agencies alike: what standard of care does a travel agency owe its clients? The case of Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 138334) clarifies that a travel agency is not a common carrier and is therefore not held to the extraordinary diligence required of airlines and other transport operators.

The Facts of the Case

In May 1991, Estela Crisostomo paid Caravan Travel Tours International, Inc. over P74,000 for a "Jewels of Europe" package tour covering seven countries. The agency's ticketing manager—who happened to be Crisostomo's niece—delivered the travel documents and plane tickets to Crisostomo's residence two days before the scheduled departure. The employee told her to be at the airport two hours before her flight.

Crisostomo did not check her documents. When she arrived at the airport on the date she believed her flight was scheduled, she discovered the plane had already departed the previous day. The ticket clearly showed the correct departure date. She then took a substitute "British Pageant" tour and later sued the agency for breach of contract of carriage and damages.

The Issue

The central legal question was whether a travel agency that arranges bookings, tickets, and accommodations is a common carrier bound by the extraordinary diligence standard under Article 1755 of the Civil Code, or an ordinary service provider subject only to the diligence of a good father of a family under Article 1173.

The Ruling: Travel Agencies Are Not Common Carriers

The Supreme Court ruled that a travel agency is not a common carrier. A common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code as an entity engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods for compensation. A travel agency, by contrast, does not transport anyone—it merely makes travel arrangements.

The Court explained that while the agency procured the plane ticket, it acted only as an agent of the airline. The contract of carriage was between the passenger and the airline. The agency's obligation was simply to ensure the client was properly booked for the appointed date and time.

Because the contract was an ordinary one for services, the agency was required only to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family—reasonable care consistent with what an ordinarily prudent person would observe in similar circumstances.

The Court's Application of the Standard

Applying this standard, the Court found that the agency had exercised due diligence. The ticket clearly reflected the departure date and time. The travel documents were delivered two days in advance. The agency properly booked the tour, prepared the necessary papers, and arranged accommodations and excursions.

The Court also rejected the lower court's finding that the agency's employee was negligent. The employee was not presented as a witness because she had already left for France, and the presumption of suppressed evidence did not apply—the client, being the employee's aunt, had equal opportunity to obtain her testimony. The client's uncorroborated narration was insufficient to prove negligence.

The Court concluded that the client, who failed to read her own ticket, had only herself to blame. She was ordered to pay the balance for the substitute tour.

Practical Takeaways

• Travel agencies are not common carriers. They owe clients ordinary diligence, not the extraordinary care required of airlines, shipping lines, and other transport operators.
• Read your travel documents. A ticket that clearly states the departure date and time will defeat a claim that the agency misinformed you.
• Verbal assurances are not enough. If an agency employee gives you information that contradicts your written ticket, confirm the details in writing.
• Proving agency negligence requires evidence. An uncorroborated claim that an employee gave wrong information may not suffice, especially if the employee is equally accessible to both parties.
• The standard of care depends on the nature of the contract. Courts determine the required diligence based on the specific obligation, not on general assumptions about the service provider.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.