Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nicholas Y. Cervantes, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and The Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Zarina Lee
    78 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philippine Airlines (PAL) in a case brought by a passenger, Nicholas Cervantes. Cervantes' ticket expired on March 27, 1990 but he attempted to use it to fly on April 2, 1990. PAL agents had confirmed his flight for April 2 without authority to extend the expired ticket. The Court found that the ticket terms were clear and not valid past the expiration date, and the agents lacked authority to extend it. While PAL did not raise the defense of lack of authority initially, the issue was still litigated in court. Damages were also denied because PAL did not act in bad faith by refusing to board Cervantes with an expired ticket.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Cervantes vs. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philippine Airlines (PAL) in a case brought by a passenger, Nicholas Cervantes. Cervantes' ticket expired on March 27, 1990 but he attempted to use it to fly on April 2, 1990. PAL agents had confirmed his flight for April 2 without authority to extend the expired ticket. The Court found that the ticket terms were clear and not valid past the expiration date, and the agents lacked authority to extend it. While PAL did not raise the defense of lack of authority initially, the issue was still litigated in court. Damages were also denied because PAL did not act in bad faith by refusing to board Cervantes with an expired ticket.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    Nicholas Y. Cervantes, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and The Philippine Airlines, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Zarina Lee
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philippine Airlines (PAL) in a case brought by a passenger, Nicholas Cervantes. Cervantes' ticket expired on March 27, 1990 but he attempted to use it to fly on April 2, 1990. PAL agents had confirmed his flight for April 2 without authority to extend the expired ticket. The Court found that the ticket terms were clear and not valid past the expiration date, and the agents lacked authority to extend it. While PAL did not raise the defense of lack of authority initially, the issue was still litigated in court. Damages were also denied because PAL did not act in bad faith by refusing to board Cervantes with an expired ticket.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 125138.

      March 2, 1999.

    NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
    respondent.

    Where a passenger was fully aware of the need to send a letter to a particular office of an airline for the
    extension of the period of validity of his ticket, he cannot subsequently use what was done by airline
    agents, who acted without authority, in confirming his flights.

    FACTS 
    On March 27, 1989, the private respondent, Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), issued to the herein
    petitioner, Nicholas Cervantes (Cervantes), a round trip plane ticket for Manila-Honolulu-Los Angeles-
    Honolulu-Manila, which ticket expressly provided an expiry date of one year from issuance, i.e., until
    March 27, 1990. The issuance of the said plane ticket was in compliance with a Compromise Agreement
    entered into between the contending parties in two previous suits. 

    On March 23, 1990, four days before the expiry date of subject ticket, the petitioner used it. Upon his
    arrival in Los Angeles on the same day, he immediately booked his Los Angeles-Manila return ticket with
    the PAL office, and it was confirmed for the April 2, 1990 flight. 

    On April 2, 1990, when the petitioner checked in at the PAL counter in San Francisco, he was not allowed
    to board because his ticket was already expired. 

    Aggrieved, petitioner Cervantes filed a Complaint for Damages, for breach of contract of carriage. The
    case was dismissed by the RTC for lack of merit. The dismissal was affirmed by CA. 

    ISSUES 

    1) Whether or not the act of the PAL agents in confirming subject ticket extended the period of validity
    of petitioner’s ticket; (No) 
    2) Whether or not the defense of lack of authority was correctly ruled upon; and (Yes) 
    3) Whether or not the denial of the award for damages was proper. (Yes) 

    RULING 
    1) The plane ticket itself provides that it is not valid after March 27, 1990. The ticket constitute the
    contract between the parties. It is axiomatic that when the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the
    intention of the contracting parties, contracts are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning. 

    In his effort to evade this inevitable conclusion, petitioner theorized that the confirmation by the PAL’s
    agents in Los Angeles and San Francisco changed the compromise agreement between the parties. This
    contention has no merit. The employees had no authority to do so. Appellant knew this from the very
    start when he called up the Legal Department of appellee in the Philippines before he left for the United
    States of America. He had first hand knowledge that the ticket in question would expire on March 27,
    1990 and that to secure an extension, he would have to file a written request for extension at the PAL’s
    office in the Philippines. Despite this knowledge, appellant persisted to use the ticket in question.
    Under Article 1898 of the New Civil Code, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do
    not bind the principal, unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly. Furthermore, when
    the third person (herein petitioner) knows that the agent was acting beyond his power or authority,
    the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of such
    limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to recover damages from the agent, unless the
    latter undertook to secure the principal’s ratification. 

    2) Petitioner stresses that the alleged lack of authority of the PAL employees was neither raised in the
    answer nor in the motion to dismiss. But records show that the question of whether there was authority
    on the part of the PAL employees was acted upon by the trial court when Nicholas Cervantes was
    presented as a witness and the depositions of the PAL employees were presented.

    Notwithstanding PAL’s failure to raise the defense of lack of authority of the said PAL agents in its
    answer or in a motion to dismiss, the omission was cured since the said issue was litigated upon. 

    3) An award of damages is improper because petitioner failed to show that PAL acted in bad faith in
    refusing to allow him to board its plane in San Francisco.

    In awarding damages, breach must be wanton and deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted
    fraudulently or with malice or bad faith. Petitioner knew there was a strong possibility that he could not
    use the subject ticket, so much so that he bought a back-up ticket to ensure his departure. What the
    employees of PAL did was one of simple negligence.

    You might also like