8. Spouses Viloria vs. Continental Airlines GR No. 188288 Facts: On or about July 21, 1997 and while in the United States, Fernando purchased for himself and his wife, Lourdes, two 2! round trip airline tic"ets from San #ie$o, %alifornia to &ewar", &ew Jersey on board b oard %ontinental %on tinental 'irlines( Fernando purchased the tic"ets from a tra)el a$ency called *+oliday ra)el- and was attended by .ara$ret .a$er .a$er!( 'ccordin$ to Spouses /iloria, iloria, Fernando a$reed to buy the said tic"ets after .a$er informed informed them that there were no a)ailable seats at 'mtra"( Subse0uently, Fernando re0uested to reschedule their fli$ht to an earlier date but .a$er informed him that fli$hts to &ewar" was fully boo"ed and offered fli$ht )ia Frontier 'ir but it was a hi$her fare so Fernando opted to re0uest a refund( .a$er denied his re0uest as the subect tic"ets are nonrefundable and the only option that %ontinental 'irlines can offer is the re issuance of new tic"ets within one 1! year from the date the subect tic"ets were issued and conse0uently reser)ed two seats with Frontier 'ir( 'ir( 's he was ha)in$ second thou$hts on tra)elin$ )ia Frontier 'ir, Fernando went to the 3reyhound Station where he saw an 'mtra" station nearby and made in0uiries( 'mtra" told Fernando that there are seats a)ailable and he can tra)el on 'mtra" anytime and any day he pleased so he purchased two tic"ets for 4ashin$ton( 4ashin$ton( Upon returnin$ to 5hilippines, Fernando sent a letter to %'6 demandin$ a refund but was denied and was ad)ised for reissuance of tic"et within two years from the date they were issued( Fernando a)ailed of o f reissuance of Lourdes tic"et but was informed that it was nontransferable( Spouses Spouses /ilor /iloria ia filed filed a compla complaint int a$ains a$ainstt %'6 prayin prayin$ $ for their their refund, refund, moral moral and e8emplary dama$es( hey claim that the misrepresentation of .a$er, a$ent of %'6, lead him to a)ail the tic"et and that %'6 is liable for her misrepresentation( rial %ourt rendered an order in fa)or of the Spouses declarin$ that .a$er of +oliday ic"et is an a$ent of %'6 and was in bad faith when she was less candid and dili$ent in presentin$ to plaintiffs spouses their boo"in$ option( On appeal %' re)ersed %s %s decision, holdin$ that %6' cannot be liable to be held liable for .a$ers act in the absence of any proof that a principala$ent relationship e8isted between them( +ence this petition for re)iew( re)iew( Issue: 4hether or not .a$er is an a$ent of %'6 and %'6 should be held liable for her ne$li$ent act( Held: +oliday ra)el is one of the a$ent of %'6( 'll the elements of a$ency e8ist( he first and second elements are present as %'6 does not deny that it concluded an a$reement with +oliday ra)el, whereby +oliday ra)el would enter into contracts of carria$e with third persons on %'6s behalf( he third element is also present as it is undisputed that +oliday ra)el merely acted in a representati)e capacity and it is %'6 and not +oliday ra)el who is bound by the contracts of carria$e entered into by +oliday ra)el on its behalf( he fourth element is also present considerin$ that %'6 has not made any alle$ation that +oliday ra)el e8ceeded the authority that was $ranted to it( 6n fact, %'6 consistently maintains the )alidity of the contracts of carria$e that +oliday ra)el e8ecuted with Spouses /iloria and that .a$er was not $uilty of any fraudulent misrepresentation( %onsiderin$ that +oliday ra)el is %'6s a$ent, does it necessarily follow that %'6 is liable liable for the fault or ne$li$ence ne$li$ence of +oliday +oliday ra)el ra)elss employees: 6f the passen$er passen$erss cause of
action a$ainst the airline company is premised on culpa aquiliana or quasidelict for a tort committed by the employee of the airline companys a$ent, t!ere "ust #e an independent s!o$in% t!at t!e airline co"pan& $as at 'ault or ne%li%ent or !as contri#uted to t!e ne%li%ence or tortuous conduct co""itted #& t!e e"plo&ee o' its a%ent. (!e "ere 'act t!at t!e e"plo&ee o' t!e airline co"pan&)s a%ent !as co""itted a tort is not su''icient to !old t!e airline co"pan& lia#le. here is no vinculum juris between the airline company and its a$ents employees and the contractual relationship between the airline company and its a$ent does not operate to create a uridical tie between the airline company and its a$ents employees( Article 218* o' t!e Civil Code does not "a+e t!e principal vicariousl& lia#le 'or t!e tort co""itted #& its a%ent)s e"plo&ees and t!e principala%enc& relations!ip per se does not "a+e t!e principal a part& to suc! tort, !ence- t!e need to prove t!e principal)s o$n 'ault or ne%li%ence. Spouses /ilorias cause of action on the basis of .a$ers alle$ed fraudulent misrepresentation is clearly one of tort or 0uasidelict, there bein$ no pree8istin$ contractual relationship between them( herefore, it was incumbent upon Spouses /iloria to pro)e that %'6 was e0ually at fault( he records are de)oid of any e)idence by which %'6s alle$ed liability can be substantiated( A person)s vicarious lia#ilit& is anc!ored on !is possession o' control$!et!er a#solute or li"ited- on t!e tort'easor. it!out suc! control- t!ere is not!in% $!ic! could /usti'& e0tendin% t!e lia#ilit& to a person ot!er t!an t!e one $!o co""itted t!e tort. 6t is incumbent upon Spouses /iloria to pro)e that %'6 e8ercised control or super)ision o)er .a$er by preponderant e)idence( he e8istence of control or super)ision cannot be presumed and %'6 is under no obli$ation to pro)e its denial or nu$atory assertion( herefore, without a modicum of e)idence that %'6 e8ercised control o)er +oliday ra)els employees or that %'6 was e0ually at fault, no liability can be imposed on %'6 for .a$ers supposed misrepresentation( 4herefore, the instant petition is denied(
