GR L 28692; (July, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28692 July 30, 1982
CONRADA VDA. DE ABETO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On November 23, 1960, Judge Quirico Abeto, a 79-year-old government official, boarded a Philippine Air Lines (PAL) flight from Iloilo to Manila. The plane never reached its destination and was later discovered to have crashed at Mt. Baco, Mindoro, killing all aboard, including Judge Abeto. His heirs filed an action for damages against PAL, alleging breach of contract of carriage due to negligence. The plaintiffs presented evidence of the decedent’s earning capacity, moral suffering, and actual damages incurred.
PAL defended by asserting the crash was a fortuitous event caused by bad weather and strong winds, absolving it of liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code. It presented evidence of the plane’s airworthiness, extensive maintenance checks, and argued the pilot exercised due care. The airline contended the navigational error leading to the crash was beyond the pilot’s control.
ISSUE
Whether Philippine Air Lines, as a common carrier, is liable for damages arising from the death of Judge Quirico Abeto due to a breach of its contractual obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence.
RULING
Yes, PAL is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of negligence, modifying only the interest computation. The legal logic rests on the nature of a common carrier’s obligation under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, which imposes a duty of extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers. This creates a presumption of negligence against the carrier upon proof of injury or death. The burden then shifts to the carrier to prove it exercised such diligence or that the incident was due to a fortuitous event.
PAL failed to rebut this presumption. Evidence, including testimony from its own official and a CAA assistant director, conclusively showed the pilot deviated from the prescribed airway “Amber 1” and was “off course,” violating standard air traffic rules. The Court found the weather clear at the flight’s altitude and noted the crash would not have occurred had the pilot followed the designated route. This unexplained deviation constituted a failure to observe extraordinary diligence. Consequently, the crash could not be deemed a fortuitous event. The award of damages for loss of earning capacity, death, moral and actual damages, and attorney’s fees was upheld as proper compensation for the breach of contract.