Case Digest - SPS. FERNANDO AND LOURDES VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

by careyssa learsi
    
SPS. FERNANDO AND LOURDES VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, GR No. 188288, 2012-01-16
(/juris/view/c5c73?
user=gK3BZSHpRM2duRkVmMm1wOGlsYXRnMEJiV09lVVVxcWpDcFVTVTVlQ3NOdz0=)
Facts:
complaint for sum of money... against respondent Continental Airlines, Inc. (CAI). As culled from the records,
below are the facts giving rise to such complaint.
while in the United States, Fernando purchased for himself and his wife, Lourdes, two (2) round trip airline
tickets from San Diego, California to Newark, New Jersey on board Continental Airlines. Fernando purchased
the tickets at US$400.00 each... from a travel agency called "Holiday Travel" and was attended to by a certain
Margaret Mager (Mager)... while in the United States, Fernando purchased for himself and his wife, Lourdes,
two (2) round trip airline tickets from San Diego, California to Newark, New Jersey on board Continental
Airlines. Fernando purchased the tickets at US$400.00 each... from a travel agency called "Holiday Travel"
and was attended to by a certain Margaret Mager (Mager).
According to Spouses Viloria, Fernando agreed to buy the said tickets after Mager informed them that there
were no available seats at Amtrak, an intercity passenger train... service provider in the United States. Per the
tickets, Spouses Viloria were scheduled to leave for Newark on August 13, 1997 and return to San Diego on
August 21, 1997
Fernando opted to request for a refund. Mager, however, denied his request as the subject tickets are non-
refundable and the only option that Continental
Airlines can offer is the re-issuance of new tickets within one (1) year from the date the subject tickets were
issued. Fernando decided to reserve two (2) seats with Frontier Air.
Fernando... then purchased two (2) tickets for Washington, D.C
From Amtrak, Fernando went to Holiday Travel and confronted Mager with the Amtrak tickets, telling her
that she had misled them into buying the Continental Airlines tickets by misrepresenting that Amtrak was
already fully booked. Fernando reiterated his demand for a refund but
Mager was rm in her position that the subject tickets are non-refundable... demanding a refund and alleging
that Mager had deluded them into purchasing the subject tickets.[3]... denied
On June 17, 1999, Fernando went to Continental's ticketing of ce at Ayala Avenue, Makati City to have the
subject tickets replaced by a single round trip ticket to Los Angeles, California under his name. Therein,
Fernando was informed that Lourdes' ticket was non-transferable,... thus, cannot be used for the purchase of
a ticket in his favor. He was also informed that a round trip ticket to Los Angeles was US$1,867.40 so he
would have to pay what will not be covered by the value of his San Diego to Newark round trip ticket... led a
complaint against CAI, praying that CAI be ordered to refund the money they used in the purchase of the
subject tickets with legal interest from July 21, 1997 and to pay P1,000,000.00 as moral damages,
P500,000.00 as exemplary... damages and P250,000.00 as attorney's fees.
as Mager is not a CAI employee, CAI is not liable for any of her acts; (d) CAI, its employees and agents did not
act in bad faith as to entitle Spouses Viloria to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. CAI also
invoked the following clause printed... on the subject tickets:... transferability and non-refundability of the
subject tickets.
misleading misrepresentations.
Mager is CAI's agent, hence, bound by her bad faith and misrepresentation. As far as the RTC is concerned,
there is no issue as to whether Mager was CAI's agent in view of CAI's implied recognition of her status... as
such in its March 24, 1998 letter.
Issues:
s a principal-agent relationship exist between CAI and Holiday Travel?
Assuming that an agency relationship exists between CAI and Holiday Travel, is CAI bound by the acts of
Holiday Travel's agents and employees such as Mager?
Assuming that CAI is bound by the acts of Holiday Travel's agents and employees, can the representation of
Mager as to unavailability of seats at Amtrak be considered fraudulent as to vitiate the consent of Spouse
Viloria in the purchase of the subject tickets?
Ruling:
agency is never presumed and that he who alleges that it exists has the burden of proof. Spouses Viloria, on
whose shoulders such burden rests, presented evidence that fell short of indubitably demonstrating the
existence of such agenc
We disagree
Principles:
The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the
relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a
representative... and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.
Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act
emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the
scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium... facit se. "He who acts through another acts himself."[19]... all the
elements of an agency exist in this case. The rst and second elements are present as CAI does not deny that
it concluded an agreement with Holiday Travel, whereby Holiday Travel would enter into contracts of carriage
with third... persons on CAI's behalf. The third element is also present as it is undisputed that Holiday Travel
merely acted in a representative capacity and it is CAI and not Holiday Travel who is bound by the contracts
of carriage entered into by Holiday Travel on its behalf. The fourth... element is also present considering that
CAI has not made any allegation that Holiday Travel exceeded the authority that was granted to it. In fact, CAI
consistently maintains the validity of the contracts of carriage that Holiday Travel executed with Spouses
Viloria and that
Mager was not guilty of any fraudulent misrepresentation. That CAI admits the authority of Holiday Travel to
enter into contracts of carriage on its behalf is easily discernible from its February 24, 1998 and March 24,
1998 letters, where it impliedly recognized the validity of... the contracts entered into by Holiday Travel with
Spouses Viloria. When Fernando informed CAI that it was Holiday Travel who issued to them the subject
tickets, CAI did not deny that Holiday Travel is its authorized agent.

Case Digest - SPS. FERNANDO AND LOURDES VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - SPS. FERNANDO AND LOURDES VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

by careyssa learsi

Fernando... then purchased two (2) tickets for Washington, D.C

s a principal-agent relationship exist between CAI and Holiday Travel?

You might also like