Philippine Airlines vs.

CA

• The Case: This is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of CA on the case “Jesus
Samson v PAL”. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications in subjecting
Petitioner PAL for damages and injury to Jesus Samson.
• The Facts: Jesus Samson was a regular co-pilot for the Petitioner PAL.
• Petitioner allowed Captain Bustamante despite the protest of Jesus Samson which stemmed
from Bustamante’s long standing tumor of the nasopharynx that made him slow and poor in
judgement which is not favorable for flying.
• Due to Captain Bustamante’s slow reaction and poor judgement, he overshot the airfield
resulting to the accident which caused severe head injuries to Jesus Samson. Despite
Samson’s utmost diligence to avert the accident.
• Samson, having sustained major injuries, was merely referred to the company phyisician of
the Petitioner.
• Samson not having received expert medical care suffered injuries that subsequently led
Petitioner to discharge him of his duties on the grounds of physical disability.
• Samson filed to the RTC and decided that Petitioner be held liable for the injuries of Samson
while Petitioner PAL’ motion to dismiss the claim was rejected by the RTC.
• CA affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the award of damages by imposing
legal rate of interest on the unearned income from the filing of the complaint.
• The Issue: WON CA erred in its decision of holding Petitioner liable for the injuries
incurred by Private Respondent Samson.
• The Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the duty to exercise the utmost diligence on the
part of common carriers as required by Art. 1732 New Civil Code is for the safety of
passengers as well as for the members of the crew or the complement operating the carrier,
and agrees with the modi cation made by the Court of Appeals in ordering payment of legal
interest from the date of judicial demand.

La Mallorca vs CA

• The Case: Petitioner seeks the review of the decision of the CA in a case that held the
petitioner liable for quasi-delict and pay 6,000 to Beltran for the death of his daughter and an
additional 400 pesos for damages.
• The Facts: Sps Mariano Beltran and his children boarded a bus operated by Petitioner La
Mallorca which was bound for Anao, Pampanga.
• Upon the arrival in Anao, Mariano Beltran left his family for a while due to the bayong he left in
the bus. His daughter ,Raquel, followed him without the his knowledge.
• Beltran failed to acquire his bayong due to the bus resuming its trip notwithstanding the fact
that the conductor has not given the signal to the driver to start.
• Subsequently these series of events led to the death of Beltran’s daughter as she was run
over by the very bus they rode.
• RTC found Petitioner La Mallorca liable for breach of contract of carriage and sentenced
Petitioner to pay for the death and damages incurred.
• CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and found the Petitioner guilty of quasi-delict and liable
for damages.
• The Issue/s: WON CA erred in holding the Petitioner for quasi-delict, considering the
complaint of Beltran was one for breach of contract
• WON CA erred in increasing the amount for damages granted by the RTC
• The Ruling: The court held that the contract of carriage does not cease to exist when the
passenger alighted from the carrier. There must be a reasonable amount of time for the
passenger to leave the carrier which in the case at bar is not given to the passenger Beltran.
Due to the sudden start of the vehicle without the customary signal given by the conductor to
the driver, there was no reasonable time for Beltran to leave the bus. Assuming arguendo that
the contract has ended, the operator can still be held liable for the negligence of the
Petitioner’s driver. Such allegations of negligence are of quasi-delict which in most times
incompatible with a claim for contract of carriage but is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8
in the New Rules of Court, which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative
be they compatible or not as long as it will resolve and determine the controversy.
• In the matter involving the issue on the increased amount of damages, the SC held that the
CA erred in increasing said amount, as Beltran did not appeal on the amount and seemed
contented with the amount.