Crisostomo v ca

This is a petition to review the decision of the Ltifr formula crisostomo v ca Appeals dated July 15,the dispositive portion of which reads:. The questioned Orders and writs directing 1 "reinstatement" of respondent Isabelo T, crisostomo v ca. 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.

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.

Crisostomo v ca

A travel agency is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. 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. Respondents services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one for services and not one of carriage. Petitioner Estela L. The booking fee was also waived because petitioners niece, Meriam Menor, was respondents ticketing manager. On June 12, , Menor went to her aunts residence to deliver petitioners travel documents and planen tickets. In return, petitioner gave the full payment for the package tour. Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA and to her dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day. She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, She called up Menor to complain and Menor suggested upon petitioner to take another tour British Pageant. Whether or not respondent Caravan did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it informed the petitioner wrongly of the flight schedule. A common carrier is defined under Article of the Civil Code as persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air, for compensation, affecting their services to the public. It is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier.

He shall be qualified for the position and appointed for a term of six 6 years by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Education and Culture after consulting with the Board which may be crisostomo v ca for another term upon recommendation of the Secretary of Education and Culture after consulting the Board.

CA, GR No. To petitioner's dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour - the "British Pageant" Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of P61, Despite several demands, respondent 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.

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.

Crisostomo v ca

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. 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. To petitioners dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day.

4 tablespoons to grams butter

But the reinstatement of petitioner to the position of president of the PUP could not be ordered by the trial court because on June 10, , P. Teja Marketing v. Davide, Jr. Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article of the Civil Code. 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. On the other hand, the administrative cases were dismissed for failure of the complainants to prosecute them. A writ of execution, ordering the sheriff to implement the order of reinstatement, was issued. On April 3, , he was appointed Acting President and on March 28, , as President for a term of six 6 years. Crisostomo Vs Court of Appeals. It is thus not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation, as petitioner claims.

CA, GR No. Menor went to her aunt's residence on June 12, - a Wednesday - to deliver petitioner's travel documents and plane tickets.

Crisostomo G. CA Estela L. Concorde Condominium V. The Court of Appeals also cites the provision of P. Belen, 13 Phil. Close Submit. David v. While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent company, this does not mean that the latter ipso facto is a common carrier. This led to a contempt citation against Dr. Maria Lourdes Sun, Respondents. Upon petitioner's return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of CV No.