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

r 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 PALs flight toTaipei the ff day. Pagsibigan took the re-scheduled flight. A few months after, he filed a complaint for moral damages and attorneys 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 Pagsibigans 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.

CA ruled out claim for moral and exemplary damages. It awarded nominal damages. ISSUE: Who should be held liable HELD: PAL With respect to CAL . . . SC noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress by pursuing two remedies at the same time, thatis, to enforce the civil liability of CAL for breach of contract and, likewise, to recover from PAL andEspiritu for tort or culpa aquiliana. In view of the proscription against double recovery, SC deemed it wise to determine the true nature of the action instituted by Pagsibigan. According to SC, a perusal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein makeout a case for a quasi-delict.Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract, he could have sued CALalone considering that PAL is not a real party to the contract.

It is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict, hemade a detour on appeal, by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage. 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. But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict. CA exonerated CAL of any liability for fault or negligence. With respect to PAL and Espiritu . . . PALs main defense is that is only an agent. As a general proposition, an agent who duly acts as suchis not personally liable to 3rd persons. However,

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