Cervantes v. CA Facts: On March 27, 1989, the private respondent, Philippines Air Lines, Inc. (PAL), (PAL), issed to the herein petitioner, !icholas Cervantes (Cervantes), a rond trip plane tic"et #or Manila$ %onoll$Los An&eles$%onoll$Manila, An&eles$%onoll$Manila, 'hich tic"et e(pressl) provided an e(pir) o# date o# one )ear #ro* issance, i.e., ntil March 27, 199+. On March 2, 199+, #or da)s -e#ore the e(pir) date o# s-ect tic"et, the petitioner sed it. /pon his arrival in Los An&eles on the sa*e da), he i**ediatel) -oo"ed his Los An&eles$ Manila retrn tic"et 'ith the PAL PAL o##ice, and it 'as con#ir*ed #or the April 2, 199+ #li&ht. On April 2, 199+ 'hen petitioner tried to -oard the plane, he 'as denied -) PAL #or the reason that the said tic"et had e(pired. As a reslt petitioner #iled a co*plaint co *plaint a&ainst PAL. PAL. 0he trial cort dis*issed the co*plaint and pon appeal to the CA, the dis*issal 'as a##ir*ed and hence this appeal.
Isse: hether or not the act o# the PAL a&ents in con#ir*in& s-ect tic"et e(tended the period o# validit) o# petitioners tic"et
%eld: 0he Cort rled in #avor o# PAL. 0he cort held that the tic"et issed -) PAL constitted the contract -et'een the parties. It 'as clear and ndispted as to the e(piration date o# the tic"et. 0he *ain isse is 'hether the validit) -eca*e e(tended -) the act o# the PAL a&ents. 0he cort rled in the ne&ative. /nder Article 1898113 o# the !e' Civil Code, the acts o# an a&ent -e)ond the scope o# his ath athor orit it) ) do not not -ind -ind the the prin princi cipa pal, l, nle nless ss the the latt latter er rati rati#i #ies es the the sa*e sa*e e(pr e(pres essl sl) ) or i*pliedl) i*pliedl).. Frther*ore Frther*ore,, 'hen the third third person (herein (herein petitioner) petitioner) "no' "no'ss that that the the a&en a&entt 'as 'as actin& -e)ond his po'er or athorit), the principal cannot -e held lia-le #or the acts o# the a&ent. I# the said third person is a'are o# sch li*its o# athorit), he is to -la*e, and is not entitled entitled to recover recover da*a&es #ro* the a&ent, nless the latter latter ndertoo" ndertoo" to secre the principals rati#ication. Fro* appellants o'n testi*on), it is clear that he "ne' #ro* the start that said a&ents had no athorit) to e(tend the validit) o# the tic"ets. %e hi*sel# testi#ied that he 'as in#or*ed -) the Le&al 4epart*ent o# PAL -e#ore he le#t the Philippines that to secre an e(tension, he 'old have to #ile a 'ritten re5est at the PAL6s o##ice. 4espite this "no'led&e, he still persisted to se the tic"et in 5estion. ince the PAL a&ents are not priv) to the said A&ree*ent and petitioner "ne' that a 'ritten re5est to the le&al consel o# PAL 'as necessar), he cannot se 'hat the PAL a&ents did to his advanta&e. advanta&e. 0he said a&ents, a&ents, accordin& accordin& to the Cort o# Appeals, Appeals,1+3 acted 'ithot athorit) 'hen the) con#ir*ed the #li&hts o# the petitioner.
