PAL vs.

CA
G.R No. L-46558 July 31, 1981
GUERRERO, J.
FACTS:

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 or the
complement operating the carrier.

Plaintiff Jesus Samson averred that on January 8, 1951, he flew as copilot on a regular flight with Captain Delfin Bustamente as commanding C47 plane belonging to PAL, now herein the petitioner; that on attempting to
land the plane at Daet airport, Capt. Bustamante due to his slow reaction and
poor judgment overshot the airfield and as result, notwithstanding the
diligent efforts of the plaintiff co-pilot to avert an accident, the airplane
crashed-landed beyond the runway. The jolt caused Samson to suffer from
brain concussion, wounds, abrasions of the forehead with intense pain and
suffering.
Samson requested for expert and proper medical assistance however
was only submitted for check-up to a company physician who is a general
med-practitioner. Several days after, he was called by PAL to report for duty
in spite of his previous request for expert medical assistance as he was
already experiencing general debility, dizziness and nervousness.
Samson, then, was discharged from duty on the grounds of physical
disability causing him to lose his job and become physically unfit to
continue as aviator due to PALs negligence in not giving him the proper
medical attention.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PAL exercised utmost diligence required of them as a
common carriage
RULING:
No. There was gross negligence by PAL for allowing Capt.
Bustamante to fly on the that fateful day of the accident, even if he was sick,
having tumor on his nose. The duty of a common carrier, like PAL, to

exercise the highest degree of diligence extends to passengers and crew

members.
The dizziness, headaches and general debility of private respondent
were after-effects of the crash-landing. And therefore there is causal
connection between the accident and said after-effects. The negligence of
PAL is clearly a quasi-delict and therefore Art. 2219 (2) is applicable,
justifying the recovery of moral damages. Even from the standpoint of the
petitioner that there is an employee-employer relationship between it and
private respondent arising from the contract of employment, private
respondent is still entitled to moral damages in view of the finding of bad
faith or malice, applying the provisions of Article 2220 which provides that
willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages
if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the judgment of the appellate
court is hereby affirmed with slight modification in that the correct amount
of compensatory damages is P204,000.00. With costs against petitioner.