09 Philippine Air Lines, Inc. VS. CA the airfield.
As a result, the airplane crashlanded beyond the runway
G.R. No. L-46558 | 31 July 1981 | Guerrero | Santos and hit a mangrove.
- The thrust caused the head of the plaintiff to hit and break through the
PETITIONER: PAL thrick front windshield of the airplane. Consequently, he suffered a
RESPONDENTS: CA, Jesus Samson severe brain concussion.
- Instead giving Samson expert and proper medical treatment, PAL
RECIT-READY: Jesus Samson is the co-pilot of Captain Bustamante. In 8 Jan simply referred him to a company physician, who limited the treatment
1951, they had a regular flight from Manila to Legaspi. When Captain to exterior injuries without examining the severe brain concussion of
Bustamante attempted to land, due to his very slow reaction and poor judgment, plaintiff.
they crashlanded beyond the runway and hit a mangrove. As a result, Samson - His brain injury was never examined nor treated. Despite his injury,
suffered brain injuries. He complained of general weakness, nervousness, dizzy defendant recalled plaintiff to active duty as a co-pilot.
spells and demanded medical expert assistance from PAL, including that he be - Samson complained to PAL that he had been having periodic dizzy
brought to the US for exmination. PAL denied his demand, and instead, recalled spells, fraility, and nervousness.
Samson to work. Because of consistent complaining of his injuries, he was - PAL’s flight surgeon, Dr. Bernardo, admitted that plaintiff continuously
subsequently disdcharged. The CFI ruled in favor of Samson, awarding him complained of such symptons and visited his clinic no less than 25
damages amounting to 198,000php for unearned income. This was affirmed by times.
the CA, and likewise awarded 50,000php as moral damages by virtue of Art. 19 - Due to PAL’s laxity, he demanded for expert medical assistance for his
of the CC. Petitioner argues before the Court that there is no casual connection brain injury and to send him to the US. This was denied by PAL.
between respondent’s superficial injuries sustained during the accident on 8 Jan - PAL discharged him on the ground of physical disability.
1951 and Samson’s discharge from the employment of PAL. Petitioner assails - It must be emphasized that even before the crashlanding occurred,
the award of moral damages of 50,000php on the ground that private Samson complained to PAL about the slow reaction and poor judgment
respondent’s action before the trial court does not fall under any of the cases of Captain Bustamante. One month prior to the crashlanding, when
enumerated under the law because there is no evidence to show that PAL Capt. Bustamante was preparing to land in Daet, the plaintiff warned
willfully caused loss or injury to private respondent. The act of defendant- him that they were not yet in Daet but in Ligao. The plain hit outside the
appellant in unjustly refusing Samson’s demand for special medicial service airstrip. In another instance, the pilot would hit Mount Mayon had not
abroad for the reason that his condition was not due to the accident violates Art. plaintiff warned him.
19 of the CC, which provides, “to act with justice, give everyone his due, and 2. During trial, it was found that the Captain Bustamante was sick. He had a
observe honesty and good faith.” longstanding tumor in his nose since 1947. PAL knew of this when the
accident occurred on 8 Jan 1951.
DOCTRINE: 3. The dismissal of PAL triggered Samson to file a case for damages before
the CFI of Albay. The latter ruled in favor of Samson, awarding him
ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the 198,000php as unearned income. This was affirmed by the CA, however, it
modified the award of damages by imposing legal rate of interest on the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
198,000php unearned income from the filing of the complaint. He was also
honesty and good faith. awarded monetary damages in the amount of 50,000php under Art. 19 of the
CC.
4. Petitioner argues before the Court that there is no casual connection
between respondent’s superficial injuries sustained during the accident on 8
Jan 1951 and Samson’s discharge from the employment of PAL.
FACTS:
It asserts that the repeated recurrence of respondent’s neurasthenic (dizzy
1. Private respondent Samson averred that on 8 Jan 1951, he flew as a co-pilot spells, headache, nervousness) symptons prompted PAL’s flight surgeon Dr.
on a regular flight from Manila to Legaspi, including stops at Daet, CamNorte Bernardo, to recommend that plaintiff be dismissed permanently because he
and Pili, Camsur; with Captain Delfin Bustamente as commanding pilot of a is “psychologically unfit to resume his duties as pilot”. Thus, Samson’s
C-47 plane belonging to defendant Philippine Airlines. discharge was for valid reasons, and that it was carried out only after he was
- On attempting to land the plane at the Daet airport, Captain thoroughly examined that he is unfit to carry out his responsibilities and
Bustamante, due to his very slow reaction and poor judgment overshot duties as a pilot.
Petitioner assails the award of moral damages of 50,000php on the ground 4. With regard to PAL’s argument on damages, the Court held that such is incorrect.
that private respondent’s action before the trial court does not fall under any The fact that private respondent suffered physical injuries in the head when the plane
of the cases enumerated under the law because there is no evidence to crash-landed due to the negligence of Capt. Bustamante is undeniable. The
show that PAL willfully caused loss or injury to private respondent in a negligence of the latter is clearly a quasi-delict, which justifies recovery of moral
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, public policy. Further, damages under Art. 2219 of the CC.
there’s an existing employer-employee relationship between them arising
from contract which bars the award of moral damages. Even if an employer-employee relationship is present, private respondent is entitled to
moral damages in view of the bad faith or malice exhibited by PAL.
ISSUES: 1. W/N PAL is liable for damages for the brain injury resulting from the
crashlanding incident? – YES The act of defendant-appellant in unjustly refusing Samson’s demand for
2. W/N PAL is liable for gross negligence? – YES special medicial service abroad for the reason that his condition was not due to
the accident violates Art. 19 of the CC, which provides, “to act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
RULING:
1. The Court held that the dizzy spells, headache, general debility/weakness of
private respondent Samson was an after-effect of the crashlanding incident. Such is
supported by substantial evidence.
In weighing the evidence presented by PAL, the Court held that the company doctors
exareggerated when they attributed Samson’s symptons as psychogenic. The Court
likewise took note that of the admitted difficulty of defendant’s doctors in determining
the cause of the dizzy spells and headache.
On the other hand, private respondent presented Dr. Morales, who testified that
plaintiff was suffering from cerebral concussion as a result of traumatic injury to the
brain caused by his hitting head on the windshield of the plane during the
crashlanding. Dr. Aramil likewise found abnormality on both sides of plaintiff’s head.
Thus, as an effect of the cause, plaintiff has to be indemnified. In fact, this was the
reason why he was discharged by PAL.
2. PAL is guilty of gross negligence for having allowed Captain Bustamante to fly on
the day of the accident. Flying as a First Officer entails a very different possibility than
flying as a mere co-pilot. PAL requested the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) to allow
Capt. Bustamante to fly merely as a co-pilot and it is safe to conclude that the CAA
approved the request, thus allowing Bustamante to fly only as a co-pilot. For having
allowed Bustamante to fly as a First Officer/Captain on the day of the accident, PAL is
guilty of gross negligence and should be made liable for the resulting accident.
3. Capt. Bustamante prior to the crashlanding incident was already negligent on his
flying (stated under the last par. on #1). Assuming that the plaintiff was not sick, the
overshooting of the runway and crashlanding in the mangrove was caused by the
pilot for which acts the defendant must answer for damages caused thereby. For this
negligence of defendant’s employee, it is liabel. 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.
