Crisostomo v ca

This is a petition to review the crisostomo v ca 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, crisostomo v ca.

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.

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" Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of Petitioner was thus constrained to file a complaint against respondent for breach of contract of carriage and damages Respondent was also negligent in informing her of the wrong flight

Chung R v.

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.

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. The administrative cases, which were filed with the Office of the President, were subsequently referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. Charges of violations of R.

Crisostomo v ca

What took place was a change in academic status of the educational institution, not in its corporate life. Hence the change in its name, the expansion of its curricular offerings, and the changes in its structure and organization. During incumbency as president following cases was filed against him:. It was subsequently referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation. He was replaced by Dr. Pablo T. Mateo, Jr. Then eventually replaced by Dr.

Samsung j7 pro back cover for girl

The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? For reasons of public policy, a common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to carry passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons and with due regard for all the circumstances. Vasquez, Jr. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, As already noted, R. Cemco Case Cemco Case. CA PDF. Nemesio Prudente, who had succeeded Dr. IV Edition , Arturo M. CA, GR No. Respondent was also negligent in informing her of the wrong flight schedule through its employee Menor. Oblicon Digest Oblicon Digest.

Pursuant to said contract, Menor went to her aunts residence on June 12, a Wednesday to deliver petitioners travel documents and plane tickets.

Crisostomo v. 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 trial court held that respondent was negligent in erroneously advising petitioner of her departure date However, petitioner should have verified the exact date and time of It performed all its obligations to enable petitioner to join the tour and exercised due diligence in its dealings with the latter. This undoubtedly would require that she at least read the documents in order to assure herself of the important details regarding the trip. Abella v. Court of Appeals Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Case Digest, Pedro de Guzman vs. Baculio G. Estela L. Petitioner had only herself to blame for missing the flight, as she did not bother to read or confirm her flight schedule as printed on the ticket.