GR L 14088; (September,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14088, L-14089, L-14112; September 30, 1961
CONCEPCION PELLOSA VDA. DE IMPERIAL, et al., and LOURDES FERRER VDA. DE HERNANDEZ, et al., and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. HEALD LUMBER COMPANY, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On June 4, 1954, a Philippine Air Lines helicopter chartered by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. crashed in a ravine within the lumber concession of Heald Lumber Company in Benguet, resulting in the total wreck of the aircraft and the deaths of pilot Capt. Gabriel Hernandez and trainee Lt. Rex Imperial. Three separate complaints for damages were filed against Heald Lumber. The plaintiffs-appellants alleged that the crash was caused by the helicopter’s collision with the defendant’s steel tramway cables strung between two mountains, attributing gross negligence to the defendant for creating an aerial hazard without proper warning.
The defendant-appellee countered that the accident was due to pilot negligence and fuel exhaustion, not a cable collision. The trial court found the plaintiffs’ evidence on causation inconclusive. It noted that the main rotor blade, which allegedly bore marks from the cables, was not preserved for court inspection, and the photographic evidence did not definitively prove the marks were from cables rather than from hitting a tree, which the helicopter admittedly struck before the crash.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant-appellee, Heald Lumber Company, was negligent and therefore liable for damages resulting from the helicopter crash.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaints. The legal logic centered on the plaintiffs’ failure to discharge the burden of proof required in tort cases. To establish liability based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of negligence and the causal connection between that negligence and the resulting injury.
The Court found the evidence on the alleged collision with the cables to be speculative and insufficient. The critical physical evidence—the rotor blade itself—was not presented, and the photographs and testimonies regarding parallel marks were ambiguous, as such marks could have been caused by the pine tree impact. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the defendant could not be held negligent for stringing cables within its private timber concession. The cables were strung at a height not within the “navigable air space” as contemplated by aeronautical regulations, and the mountainous, pine-tree-filled terrain was inherently unsuitable and dangerous for low-altitude flight. The defendant could not have reasonably foreseen that an aircraft would navigate at such a low level in that area. Consequently, no duty to warn was breached. With the cause of the crash unproven and no negligence established, the action for damages must fail.