Crisostomo v ca

In Maypetitioner Estela L.

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 15, , the dispositive portion of which reads:. The questioned Orders and writs directing 1 "reinstatement" of respondent Isabelo T. Crisostomo to the position of "President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines", and 2 payment of "salaries and benefits" which said respondent failed to receive during his suspension insofar as such payment includes those accruing after the abolition of the PCC and its transfer to the PUP, are hereby set aside. Accordingly, further proceedings consistent with this decision may be taken by the court a quo to determine the correct amounts due and payable to said respondent by the said university. During his incumbency as president of the PCC, two administrative cases were filed against petitioner for illegal use of government vehicles, misappropriation of construction materials belonging to the college, oppression and harassment, grave misconduct, nepotism and dishonesty.

Crisostomo v ca

However, the petitioner missed her flight because the flight she was supposed to take had already departed from the previous day. The default standard of care is only diligence of a good father of a family. The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands. There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation and each case must be determined upon its particular facts. The degree of diligence required depends on the circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a question of fact that is to be determined after taking into account the particulars of each case. However, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day. The petitioner then take another package British Pageant offered by the respondent; She went to RTC to demand reimbursement on the differential cost of the two tour packages. Petitioner was merely guilty of contributory negligence. Hence, not entitled for damages. Respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency.

The degree of diligence required depends on the circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a question of fact that is to be determined after taking into account the particulars of each case, crisostomo v ca. Paramount Insurance Corporation v.

CA, GR No. Menor went to her aunt's residence on June 12, - a Wednesday - to deliver petitioner's travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14,

In May , petitioner Estela L. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, , to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, She thus called up Menor to complain. Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour — the "British Pageant" — which included England, Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. Despite several demands, respondent company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable.

Crisostomo v ca

CA, GR No. Menor went to her aunt's residence on June 12, - a Wednesday - to deliver petitioner's travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour. Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, She thus called up Menor to complain. Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour - the "British Pageant"

J7 pro pc suite

The Court of Appeals also cites the provision of P. Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the Agcaoili vs. Despite several demands, respondent company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision denying the petitioner damages, as she was found to be more negligent than the travel agency. Puno, J. Regalado, Romero and Torres, Jr. Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight schedule. He contends that if the law had intended the PCC to lose its existence, it would have specified that the PCC was being "abolished" rather than "converted" and that if the PUP was intended to be a new institution, the law would have said it was being "created. Case Digest, Pedro de Guzman vs. The default standard of care is only diligence of a good father of a family. The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another On October 22, , petitioner was preventively suspended from office pursuant to R. Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the airline.

Pursuant to said contract, Menor went to her aunts residence on June 12, a Wednesday to deliver petitioners travel documents and plane tickets. Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour.

Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of P61, Decision Ynares-Santiago, J. Close suggestions Search Search. Petitioner Estela L. It is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour. The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Ochoa, Borilla 15 Virata vs. AI-enhanced title. Case Digest, Pedro de Guzman vs. It was thus error for the lower court to invoke the presumption that respondent willfully suppressed evidence under Rule , Section 3 e. Rabaja Ranch Development Corp. Nor will changes in its existing structure and organization bring about its abolition and the creation of a new one.