Scribd
Upload
141 views1 page

Singson v. Cathay Pacific: Breach of Contract

Singson bought round trip tickets from Cathay Pacific to travel from Manila to Los Angeles and back. However, when he tried to book his return flight from Los Angeles to Manila, he discovered that the flight coupon for that leg of the trip was missing. Cathay Pacific then failed to immediately confirm his booking. The Supreme Court ruled that the round trip ticket constituted a written contract of carriage between Singson and Cathay Pacific. By losing the coupon and failing to promptly confirm the booking, Cathay Pacific breached this contract of carriage, as the loss of the coupon was due to the airline's negligence. The Court therefore found Cathay Pacific liable for damages.

Uploaded by

Mark Michael Resuello
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
141 views1 page

Singson v. Cathay Pacific: Breach of Contract

Singson bought round trip tickets from Cathay Pacific to travel from Manila to Los Angeles and back. However, when he tried to book his return flight from Los Angeles to Manila, he discovered that the flight coupon for that leg of the trip was missing. Cathay Pacific then failed to immediately confirm his booking. The Supreme Court ruled that the round trip ticket constituted a written contract of carriage between Singson and Cathay Pacific. By losing the coupon and failing to promptly confirm the booking, Cathay Pacific breached this contract of carriage, as the loss of the coupon was due to the airline's negligence. The Court therefore found Cathay Pacific liable for damages.

Uploaded by

Mark Michael Resuello
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

SINGSON vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS


G.R. No. 119995. November 18, 1997
FACTS:
Petitioner Singson and his cousin Tiongson bought from respondent Cathay
Pacific Airways two (2) open-dated, identically routed, round trip plane tickets
(Manila to Los Angeles and vice versa). Each ticket consisted of six (6) flight
coupons, each would be detached at the start of each leg of the trip.
Singson failed to obtain a booking in Los Angeles for their trip to Manila.
Apparently, the coupon corresponding to the 5th leg of the trip was missing and
instead the 3rd was still attached. It was not until few days later that the
defendant finally was able to arrange for his return to Manila.
Singson commenced an action for damages based on breach of contract of
carriage against CATHAY before the Regional Trial Court. CATHAY alleged that
there was no contract of carriage yet existing such that CATHAYs refusal to
immediately book him could not be construed as breach of contract of carriage.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner herein holding that
CATHAY was guilty of gross negligence amounting to malice and bad faith. On
appeal by CATHAY, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts finding that
there was gross negligence amounting to bad faith or fraud and, accordingly,
modified its judgment by deleting the awards for moral and exemplary
damages, and the attorneys fees as well.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a breach of contract was committed by CATHAY when it failed to
confirm the booking of petitioner.
HELD:
Yes. The round trip ticket issued by the carrier to the passenger was in itself a
complete written contract by and between the carrier and the passenger. It had
all the elements of a complete written contract, to wit: (a) the consent of the
contracting parties manifested by the fact that the passenger agreed to be
transported by the carrier to and from Los Angeles via San Francisco and Hong
Kong back to the Philippines, and the carriers acceptance to bring him to his
destination and then back home; (b) cause or consideration, which was the fare
paid by the passenger as stated in his ticket; and, (c) object, which was the
transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the place of
destination and back, which are also stated in his ticket. In fact, the contract of
carriage in the instant case was already partially executed as the carrier
complied with its obligation to transport the passenger to his destination, i.e.,
Los Angeles. The loss of the coupon was attributable to the negligence of
CATHAYs agents and was the proximate cause of the non-confirmation of
petitioner's return flight.

You might also like