PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. L-46558
July 31, 1981

FACTS:
Private respondent Jesus V. Samson flew as co-pilot on a regular flight from Manila to Legaspi with
stops at Daet, Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur, with Captain Bustamante as commanding pilot.
On attempt to land the plane at Daet airport, Capt. Bustamante overshot the airfield due to his slow
reaction and poor judgment and as a result notwithstanding the diligent efforts of respondent to
avert an accident, the airplane crash landed beyond the runway. Private respondent hit his head
against the front windshield of the plane causing severe brain concussion, wounds, and abrasions of
the forehead with intense pain and suffering.
Instead of giving respondent the proper medical treatment called for by the nature and severity of
his injuries, PAL simply referred him to a company physician, a general practitioner, who limited the
treatment to the exterior injuries without examining the severe brain concussion.
Respondent was called to report for duty and despite his repeated request for expert medical
assistance, PAL had not given him any; that as a consequence of the brain injury sustained, he had
been having periodic dizzy spells and had been suffering from general debility and nervousness; that
PAL, instead of submitting respondent to expert medical treatment, discharged the latter from his
employment on grounds of physical disability.
RTC ruled against the petitioners and the decision was affirmed by CA.
ISSUE:
WON PAL was negligent and is liable (YES)
RULING:
There was gross negligence on the part of PAL for allowing Capt. Bustamante for flying on the day of
the accident even when he was sick and had a tumor on his nose.
Petitioner is a common carrier engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both, by land, water or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public, as defined
in Art. 1732 of the NCC.
Under the law, it is clear that common carriers are required to exercise the highest degree of care in
the discharge of its duty and business of carriage and transportation under Art. 1733, 1755, and 1756
of the NCC.
The duty to exercise the utmost diligence on the part of common carriers is for the safety of
passengers as well as for the members of the crew and for any omission, lapse or neglect thereof will
certainly result to the damage, prejudice, injuries and even death to all aboard the plane, passengers
and crew members alike.
The dizziness, headaches, and general debility of private respondent were after-effects of the crash
landing. Therefore, there is a causal connection between the accident and said after-effects. The
negligence of PAL is clearly a quasi-delict, thus Art. 2219 is applicable, justifying the recovery of moral
damages.
Private respondent is entitled to moral damages, despite that there existed an employee-employer
relationship between the two, in view of the finding of bad faith or malice, applying the provisions of
Art 2220 which provides that willful injury to property is a legal ground for awarding moral damages,
if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due.