[COMMON CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS]
PAL vs. CA (1981)
July 31, 1981 | Guerrero, J. |
Doctrine:
Facts:
 Jesus Samson, the private respondent was a co-pilot on a flight from
Manila to Legaspi with Captain Bustamante as commanding pilot for PAL.
 He avers that due to Captain Bustamante’s slow reaction and poor
judgment, Bustamante overshot the airfield and as a result the plan crash
landed beyond the runway. This causes Samson’s head to break through
the windshield and gave him a severe brain concussion.
 PAL merely referred him to the company physician, who was a general
practitioner and limited the treatment to the exterior injuries without
examining his brain concussion. He was not given expert medical
assistance despite his requests.
 Samson ended up getting periodic dizzy spells, general debility and
nervousness and was discharged on the grounds of physical disability.
 Samson filed a case for negligence against PAL in the RTC. PAL denied
averments and said it was caused by unforeseen circumstances, plaintiff
sustained superficial wounds, and that Samson’s symptoms were due to
neurosis because he couldn’t pass the required promotional course.
Further PAL alleged that by the very nature of its business as a
common carrier, it is bound to employ only pilots who are proficient
and in good mental, emotional and physical condition; that the pilot,
Captain Delfin Bustamante, was a competent and proficient pilot, and
although he was already afflicted with a tumor of the nasopharynx
even before the accident.
 RTC and CA – Ruled for Samson
Issue:
#1 W/N There is a causal connection between the crash and Samson’s symptoms –
Yes
 PAL only showed physical examination results conducted on Samson that
suited their narrative.
 The fact that the doctors could not determine what was causing Samson’s
dizzy spells cannot be used as a sound basis for finding against Samson
and in favor of the defendant.
 Whatever the cause may be, it was the after-effect of the crash landing to
which Samson must be indemnified.
 Plaintiff’s doctors testified that Samson was suffering from cerebral
concussion as a result of traumatic injury to the brain cuased by this head
hitting the windshield
Issue #2: WON PAL was grossly negligent for allowing Captain Bustamante to fly
despite him being sick? – YES
 Bustamante had a tumor in the nasopharynx who complains of pain in the
face which causes him sleepless nights.
 Samson’s observation of Bustamante was reported to the Chief pilot who
did nothing about it. There were a couple of times when
Held:
• As a common carrier, defendant-appellant PANTRANCO was duty bound to carry
its passengers "safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances.” (Art. 1755, NCC)
• Finding of CA that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event is in large
measure conjectural and speculative
• As held in Lasam v. Smith, an accident caused by defects in the automobile is
not a caso fortuito. The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that "the
passenger has neither the choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and
use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier.”
• When a passenger dies or is injured, the presumption is that the common carrier
is at fault or that it acted negligently (Article 1756). This presumption is only
rebutted by proof on the carrier's part that it observed the "extraordinary
diligence" required in Article 1733 and the "utmost diligence of very cautious
persons" required in Article 1755 (Article 1756).
• CA considered presumption rebutted on the strength of PANTRANCO’s evidence
that only the day before the incident, the crosspoint in question was duly
inspected and found to be in order.
• It does not appear, however, that the carrier gave due regard for all the
circumstances in connection with the inspection.
◦ The bus in which the deceased were riding was heavily laden with passengers,
and it would be traversing mountainous, circuitous and ascending roads. Thus
the entire bus, including its mechanical parts, would naturally be taxed more
heavily than it would be under ordinary circumstances.
◦ The mere fact that the bus was inspected only recently and found to be in order
would not exempt the carrier from liability unless it is shown that the particular
circumstances under which the bus would travel were also considered.
Dispositive
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the judgment appealed from is
modified as indicated above, and defendant-appellant PANTRANCO is ordered to
pay to plaintiffs-appellees the amounts stated in the judgment appealed from, as
damages for breach of contracts, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the
date of the filing of the complaints.