Case Name: Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals By: Del Rosario, Keren Michelle P.

GR No. L-46558 Topic: Strict Liability

Date: July 31, 1981

FACTS

Plaintiff Samson filed an action for damages against PAL. He alleged the following:
o He was a regular co-pilot of petitioner PAL with P750/month salary. He was assigned and paired to pilot Capt.
Bustamante
o The two manned the regular afternoon flight of defendant's plane from Manila to Legaspi, with stops at Daet,
Camarines Norte, and Pili, Camarines Sur. Upon making a landing at Daet, the pilot, with his slow reaction and
poor judgment, overshot the airfield and, as a result of and notwithstanding diligent efforts of plaintiff to avert an
accident, the airplane crash-landed beyond the runway into a mangrove. The jolt and impact caused plaintiff to hit
his head upon the front windshield of the plane thereby causing his brain concussions and wounds on the
forehead, with concomittant intense pain.
o He suffered physical injuries in the head, which occurred during a crash landing of PALs aircraft. The said
landing was due to the gross negligence of Captain Bustamante.
o After the incident, plaintiff Samson requested PAL to give him expert and proper medical treatment since he was
having periodic dizzy spells and was suffering from general debility and nervousness.
o Defendant PAL merely referred him to its clinic attended by general practitioners on his external injuries. His
brain injury was never examined, much less treated. On top of that negligence, defendant recalled plaintiff to
active duty as a co-pilot, completely ignoring his plea for expert medical assistance.
o Later on, PAL terminated the services of plaintiff Samson on the ground of physical disability.
o Plaintiff further alleged in the complaint that he lost his job due to physical incapacity to continue. However, the
physical incapacity was caused by PALs negligence in not giving him proper medical attention
o defendant simply referred him to a company physician, a general medical practitioner, who limited the treatment
to the exterior injuries without examining the severe brain concussion of plaintiff
o several days after the accident, defendant Philippine Air Lines called back the plaintiff to active duty as co-pilot,
and inspite of the latter's repeated request for expert medical assistance, defendant had not given him any
o that defendant airline company instead of submitting the plaintiff to expert medical treatment, discharged the latter
from its employ on December 21, 1953 on grounds of physical disability
PAL denied liability and alleged the following:
o The accident was unforeseen, and the injuries sustained by plaintiff were superficial wounds and minor injuries.
o The headaches and dizziness experienced by the plaintiff were due to his emotional disturbance as confirmed by a
neuro-surgeon. Plaintiff was suffering from neurosis
o Petitioner quotes portions of the testimony of Dr. Manuel S. Sayas, who declared that he removed the band- aid on
the forehead of respondent and that he found out after removal that the latter had two contussed superficial
wounds over the supra orbiter regions or just above the eyes measuring one centimeter long and one millimeter
deep. He examined and found his blood pressure normal, no discharges from the nose and ears.
o Dr. Trajano V. Bernardo also testified that when he examined respondent Samson three days after the accident, the
wound was already healed and found nothing wrong with his ears, nose and throat so that he was declared fit for
duty after the sixth day.
o Due to his, plaintiff was terminated and unfit to continue as a pilot
o 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 of January 8, 1951, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, in
passing upon the fitness of pilots, gave Capt. Bustamante a waiver of physical standards to enable him to retain his
first class airman certificate since the affliction had not in the least affected his proficiency
o According to PAL, it was the repeated recurrence of respondent's neurasthenic symptoms (dizzy spells, headache,
nervousness) which prompted PAL's Flight Surgeon, Dr. Bernardo, to recommend that plaintiff be grounded
permanently as respondent was "psychologically unfit to resume his duties as pilot." PAL concludes that
respondent's eventual discharge from employment with PAL was effected for absolutely valid reasons, and only
after he was thoroughly examined and found unfit to carry out his responsibilities and duties as a pilot.
TC: the damages suffered by plaintiff were attributable to the accident, and was due to PALs negligence. PAL was liable
to plaintiff the following: P198,000.00 as unearned income or damages; P50,000.00 for moral damages; P20,000.00 as
attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as expenses of litigation, or a total of P273,000.00. Costs against the defendant."
CA affirmed the decision, but modified the award of damages by imposing the legal rate of interest.
Hence, this petition
ISSUE/S:

W/N PAL is negligent

HELD

Yes. PAL is negligent.

1. PAL, as a common carrier, is required by law to exercise a high degree of diligence for the safety of the passengers as well
as the members of its crew. The Court affirmed the finding of the lower courts that PAL was grossly negligent in allowing
Capt. Bustamante to fly the plane despite his slow reaction and poor judgment. This caused the plane to crash.

2. Capt. Bustamante was sick. He admittedly had tumor of the nasopharynx (nose). He is now in the Great Beyond. The spot
is very near the brain and the eyes. Tumor on the spot will affect the sinus, the breathing, the eyes which are very near it.
No one will certify the fitness to fly a plane of one suffering from the disease. The fact First Pilot Bustamante has a long
standing tumor of the Nasopharynx for which reason he was grounded since November 1947 is admitted in the letter of Dr.
Bernardo to the Medical Director of the CAA requesting waiver of physical standards. The request for waiver of physical
standards is itself a positive proof that the physical condition of Capt. Bustamante is short of the standard set by the CAA.
As established by the evidence, the pilot used to get treatments from Dr. Sycangco. He used to complain of pain in the face
more particularly in the nose which caused him to have sleepless nights. Plaintiff's observation of the pilot was reported to
the Chief Pilot who did nothing about it. Captain Carbonel of the defendant corroborated plaintiff of this matter.

3. One month prior to the crash-landing, when the pilot was preparing to land in Daet, plaintiff warned him that they were not
in the vicinity of Daet but above the town of Ligao. The plane hit outside the airstrip. In another instance, the pilot would
hit the Mayon Volcano had not plaintiff warned him. These more than prove what plaintiff had complained of. Disregard
thereof by defendant is condemnable.

4. The admitted difficulty of defendant's doctors in determining the cause of the dizzy spells and headache cannot be a sound
basis for finding against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant. Whatever it might be, the fact is that such dizzy spells,
headache and general debility was an after-effect of the crash- landing. Be it brain injury or psychosomatic, neurasthenic or
psychogenic, there is no gainsaying the fact that it was caused by the crash-landing. We are prone to believe the testimony
of the plaintiff's doctors:

Dr. Morales, a surgeon, found that blood was coming from plaintiff's ears and nose. He testified that plaintiff was suffering
from cerebral concussion as a result of traumatic injury to the brain caused by his head hitting on the windshield of the plane
during the crash-landing.

Dr. Conrado Aramil, a neurologist and psychiatrist with experience in two hospitals abroad, found abnormality reflected by the
electroencephalogram examination in the frontal area on both sides of plaintiff's head.

5. Assuming that the pilot was not sick or that the tumor did not affect the pilot in managing the plane, the evidence shows
that the overshooting of the runway and crash-landing at the mangrove was caused by the pilot for which acts the defendant
must answer for damages caused thereby. And for this negligence of defendant's employee, it is liable (Joaquin vs. Aniceto,
12 SCRA 308). At least, the law presumes the employer negligent imposing upon it the burden of proving that it exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employees.

6. The award for compensatory damages were affirmed by the Court under the provisions of Article 1711 and 1712 of the
NCC. The law gives the employers the obligation to compensate for the death or injuries to their employees even if the
event is accidental or due to a fortuitous cause. Also, if death or injury is due to the negligence of a co-worker, the co-
worker and the employer is solidarily liable for compensation. These instances are present in the case at bar. There was
gross negligence on the part of PAL when it allowed Capt. Bustamante to fly a plane despite his slow reaction and poor
judgment causing the plaintiff to suffer injuries. These injuries were latter the cause of his termination as co-pilot after
PALs refusal to provide him with necessary medical treatment produced from the said injuries.

7. The grant of compensatory damages to the private respondent made by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court by
computing his basic salary per annum at P750.00 a month as basic salary and P300.00 a month for extra pay for extra
flying time including bonus given in December every year is justified.
 The correct computation however should be P750 plus P300 x 12 months = P12,600 per annum x 10 years = P126,000.00
(not P120,000.00 as computed by the court a quo). The further grant of increase in the basic pay of the pilots to P12,000
annually for 1964 to 1968 totalling P60,000.00 and another P18,000.00 as bonuses and extra pay for extra flying time at the
same rate of P300.00 a month totals P78,000.00. Adding P126,000.00 (1964 to 1968 compensation) makes a grand total of
P204,000.00 (not P198,000.00 as originally computed).

As to the grant of moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 We also approve the same. We have noted and considered the
holding of the appellate court in the matter of bad faith on the part of PAL. The act of defendant-appellant in unjustly
refusing plaintiff-appellee's demand for special medical service abroad for the reason that plaintiff-appellee's deteriorating
physical condition was not due to the accident violates the provisions of Article 19 of the Civil Code on human relations
"to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

8. The fact that plaintiff suffered physical injuries in the head when the plane crash-landed was due to the negligence of Capt.
Bustamante. It is clearly a quasi-delict under Article 2219(2). The award of moral damages were also affirmed by the Court
because applying the provisions of Article 2220, a willful injury to the property may be a legal ground for awarding moral
damages. Also, moral damages is justified under Article 19 where it requires every person, in the exercise of his rights and
in performance of his duties, must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Doctrine Notes

Under the provisions of Article 1711 and 1712 of the NCC, the law gives the
employers the obligation to compensate for the death or injuries to their employees
even if the event is accidental or due to a fortuitous cause. Also, if death or injury is
due to the negligence of a co-worker, the co-worker and the employer is solidarily
liable for compensation.