Debuton, Ellen Joy D.
Franklin G. Gacal, et al. vs. Philippines Air Lines, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. L-55300, March 15, 1990
Facts:
Plaintiffs were then passengers boarding defendant's BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport for a
flight to Manila, not knowing that on the same flight, members of the Moro National
Liberation Front (MNLF) were their co-passengers. Ten minutes after take-off, the
hijackers brandishing their respective firearms announced the hijacking of the aircraft
and directed the pilot to fly to Libya. When the plane began to taxi at the runway in
Zamboanga City for refueling, it was met by two armored cars of the military with machine
guns pointed at the plane. A battle between the military and the hijackers ensued which
led to the liberation of the surviving crew and passengers.
An action for damages was instituted by the plaintiffs demanding actual damages,
hospital and medical expenses, moral damages and exemplary damages. The trial court
dismissed the complaints finding that all the damages sustained in the premises were
attributed to force majeure. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not PAL is liable for damages.
Ruling: NO
Under Art 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary
diligence in their vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by
them, according to all the circumstances of each case. They are presumed at fault or to
have acted negligently whenever a passenger dies or is injured or for the loss, destruction
or deterioration of goods in cases other than those enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil
Code.
The source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering
into said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide. There is breach of this obligation if it fails to exert extraordinary
diligence according to all the circumstances of the case in exercise of the utmost diligence
of a very cautious person.
It is the duty of a common carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence and it must
be shown that the carrier had observed the required extraordinary diligence of a very
cautious person as far as human care and foresight can provide or that the accident was
caused by a fortuitous event. Thus, as ruled by this Court, no person shall be responsible
for those "events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were inevitable."
(Article 1174, Civil Code).
In order to constitute a caso fortuito or force majeure that would exempt a person from
liability, it is necessary that the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the
breach of the obligation must be independent of the human will; (b) the event must be
either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible
for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free
from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.
In this case, the failure to transport petitioners safely from Davao to Manila was due to
the skyjacking incident which was without any connection with private respondent,
hence, independent of the will of either the PAL or of its passengers. Under normal
circumstances, PAL might have foreseen the skyjacking incident which could have been
avoided had there been a more thorough frisking of passengers and inspection of
baggages as authorized by R.A. No. 6235. But the incident in question occurred during
Martial Law where there was a military take-over of airport security including the frisking
of passengers and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding domestic and
international flights. These events rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its
obligations in a nominal manner and obviously it cannot be faulted with negligence in the
performance of duty taken over by the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the exclusion
of the former.
Dispositive:
Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of First
Instance is hereby AFFIRMED.
