CHINA AIRLINES LTD v COURT OF APPEALS May 18, 1990 FACTS:  Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket for a Manila

-Taipei-HongkongManila flight from theTransaire Travel Agency.  The said agency contacted Philippine Airlines which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of China Airlines.  PAL, through its ticketing agent Roberto Espiritu, issued to Pagsibigan the plane ticket which showedthat the latter had been booked at the June 10, 1968 5:20 PM flight of China Airlines, departing fromManila for Taipei.  When Pagisibigan showed up at the airport an hour before the supposed scheduled time of departure,he was informed that the CAL plane he was supposed to take for Taipei had left at 10:20 AM that day.  The PAL employees then made appropriate arrangements so that he could take the PAL’s flight toTaipei the ff day. Pagsibigan took the re-scheduled flight.  A few months after, he filed a complaint for moral damages and attorney’s fees against PAL. He allegedthat Espiritu had been grossly negligent in his duties, as a result of which he suffered besmirchedreputation, embarrasment, MA, WF and SN, thereby warranting award for moral damages.  In its defense, PAL alleged that:1.the departure time indicated on Pagsibigan’s plane ticket was furnished and confirmed by ChinaAirlines2.that China Airlines did not inform the issuing PAL branch of the revised timetable of CAL flightsPAL asserted a cross-claim against CAL.  China Airlines, for its part, averred1.that all airlines, including PAL, were informed of the revised schedule of flights2.that notices of these revised sked were furnished to all sales agent3.that the issuing PAL branch had in fact been issuing and selling tickets based on the revised timeskedCAL also asserted a cross claim against PAL.  TC found PAL and Roberto Espiritu jointly and severally liable by way of exemplary damages. It did notaward moral damages. CAL was exonerated. 

. an agent who duly acts as suchis not personally liable to 3rd persons.  But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. thatis.  PAL’s main defense is that is only an agent. he could have sued CALalone considering that PAL is not a real party to the contract. . .CA ruled out claim for moral and exemplary damages. a perusal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein makeout a case for a quasi-delict. to enforce the civil liability of CAL for breach of contract and. . However. to recover from PAL andEspiritu for tort or culpa aquiliana.  It is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict.  In view of the proscription against double recovery. by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage. With respect to PAL and Espiritu . likewise.  SC did not allow Pagsibigan to change his theory at this stage because it would be unfair for CAL as itwould have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory. As a general proposition.Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract. .  SC noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress by pursuing two remedies at the same time. CA exonerated CAL of any liability for fault or negligence. SC deemed it wise to determine the true nature of the action instituted by Pagsibigan. It awarded nominal damages. hemade a detour on appeal. ISSUE: Who should be held liable HELD: PAL With respect to CAL .  According to SC.

can demand from Espiritu reimbursement of theamount which it will have to pay the offended party’s claim. Decision modified. PAL had been issuing and selling ticket based on said revised time sked. . all that is required is that the employee. it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 of CC. what is sought to be imposed is the directand primary liability of PAL as an employer. This presumption.  For his negligence. As found by CA.  Under Article 2180. may be rebutted bya clear showing on the part of the employer that it has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. PAL was duly informed of CAL’s revisedsked. by his negligene. whereby Pagsibigan seeks recovery for thedamages from both PAL and Espiritu without qualification. however. as in this case wherethe agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. PAL.there are admitted exceptions. committed a quasi-delictwhich caused damage to another.  When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee. and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily liablefor the tortious act of the employee. there instantly arises a presumption of lawthat there was negligence on the part of the employer. For the failureof PAL to rebut the legal presumption of negligence. however.  IN an action premised on the employee’s negligence. Espiritu is primarily liable to Pagisbigan under Article 2176 of the CC.PAL failed to overcome such presumption. and in fact.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful