Law expert shames Cebu Pac for bad service

In a Supreme-Court-settled case, it was held that a business intended to serve the travelling public primarily, a contract of carriage is imbued with public interest. The law governing common carriers consequently imposes an exacting standard. Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that in case of lost or damaged goods, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required by Article 1733. Thus, in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier. (G.R. No. 165266. December 15, 2010)

Law expert Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino on November 25, 2018 at 3:40PM posted on Facebook his disappointment regarding the service of Cebu Pacific, an airline company in the Philippines (a common carrier). Below is his actual post.

ONCE MORE CEBU PACIFIC HAS DEALT UNDERHANDEDLY WITH THE PEOPLE OF TUGUEGARAO...

The flight was scheduled for 12.50 pm, boarding was to have been at 12.20. We were first told that "additional servicing" of the aircraft would cause a delay. Twice, this ruse was used on us while we patiently but STUPIDLY waited. At 2 pm, we were finally told: CebuPac had decided to cancel the flight to Tuguegarao.

TODAY is the Solemnity of Christ the King. I was supposed to celebrate Mass at the Cathedral at 5 pm. I had to be in Manila Saturday because the new semester of the Graduate School was starting and a dean who is worth his deanship does not absent himself on the first class day of the semester.

My 86 year old father spent all the hours patiently waiting at the airport...stressed. Occasionally,he would struggle up from his wheelchair to relieve the strain.

I have work in my office at CSU tomorrow, and very serious work.

CEBU PACIFIC can treat us Cagayanos shabbily because we meekly accept such treatment. But if we took collective action against them, then they probably would treat us with more respect.

As it is they have no respect for us. Have you noticed that Tuguegarao passengers are always sent off through Gate 134? The toilet of the departure area. And they park two kilometres away from the terminal because they do not want to allow us the luxury of the tube.

Mr. Gokongwei, you are operating a PUBLIC UTILITY franchised by the government to serve the public. You run a lousy airline while lining your already well-lined pockets. You may be rich and mighty, since Chinese like you are apparently so mighty now, but I will sue your company.

And I pray Christ the King to mete out to you the punishment you and your people deserve.

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST TO SHAME CEBU PACIFIC.
In another case, the High Court ruled that, in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier. As the aggrieved party, the [passengers] only had to prove the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by [the airline company], as carrier, in order to be awarded compensatory and actual damages.

Therefore, having proven the existence of a contract of carriage between [the airline company] and the [passengers], and the fact of non-performance by [the airline company] of its obligation as a common carrier, it is clear that [the airline company] breached its contract of carriage with the [passengers]. Thus, [the airline company] opened itself to claims for compensatory, actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

Moreover, Article 1733 of the New Civil Code provides that common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. Also, Article 1755 of the same Code states that a common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. xxx

Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the carrier.

In requiring compliance with the standard of extraordinary diligence, a standard which is, in fact, that of the highest possible degree of diligence, from common carriers and in creating a presumption of negligence against them, the law seeks to compel them to control their employees, to tame their reckless instincts and to force them to take adequate care of human beings and their property. (G.R. No. 212038. February 8, 2017)