During the trial the lower court found that in

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: alidity of petitioner’s ticket SC: NO As found by the lower court, the plane ticket itself provides that it is not valid after March 27, 1990. It is also stipulated in paragraph 8 of the Conditions of Contract that: “This ticket is good for carriage for one year from date of issue, except as otherwise provided in this ticket, in carrier’s tariffs, conditions of carriage, or related regulations. The fare for carriage hereunder is subject to change prior to commencement of carriage. Carrier may refuse transportation if the applicable fare has not been paid.” In the case of Lufthansa vs. Court of Appeals, the “ticket constitute the contract between the parties. It is axiomatic that when the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, contracts are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning.” In his effort to evade this inevitable conclusion, petitioner theorized that the confirmation by the PAL’s agents in Los Angeles and San Francisco changed the compromise agreement between the parties. Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said Agreement and petitioner knew that a written request to the legal counsel of PAL was necessary to extend the validity of his ticket, he cannot use what the PAL agents did to his advantage. The said agents, according to the Court of Appeals, acted without authority when they confirmed the flights of the petitioner. Under Article 1898 of the New Civil Code, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly. Furthermore, when the third 54 person (Cervantes) knows that the agent was acting beyond his power or authority, the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of such limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to recover damages from the agent, unless the latter undertook to secure the principal’s ratification. Petition is DENIED and the decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. Safic Alcan v. Imperial Vegetable (IVO), 355 SCRA 559 (2001) FRANCISCO Doctrine: Under Art. 1898, the acts of an agent beyond the scope...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online