MGA PAPS SUGGESTIONS.

THESE ARE MY AFTERTHOUGHTS WHEN IVE FINISHED READING THEIR FINAL

SOC.

Subfeature mlg sya te ano?

Naglibog ang ulo ta, therefore nag pa double check sa CAAP. Gin approve

FIRST. LET’S MAKE UP OUR OWN VERSION OF THE STORY

SECOND. ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS DISCLOSURE AS TO THE ADVANCED RELAY AUTO PILOT IN ALL
PROGRESS REPORTS INCLUDING THE DELIVERY REPORT

THIRD. ARGUE THAT PHILPA DID NOT OBSERVE THE STANDARD PROCEDURE, THUS, WHEN THEY
INCURRED THE LOSS, THEY JUST MAKE UP STORIES AND FABRICATE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO COVER UP
THEIR LOSS. (dapat ang tenor sang arguments ta is… gina pabalo tagid sila nga every progress report ara
japon ang advanced relay, and ila gd ya negligence ang nag lead sa muni)

FOURTH. THEIR FACTS, PARTICULARLY THE PORTION ON PARAGRAPH (11) “THE NOTICE PROMPTED
PHILPA TO SELL TICKETS” IS A STARK ILLUSTRATION THAT PHILPA DID NOT OBSERVE THE NECESSARY
PROCEDURE BEFORE CLEARING THE AIRCRAFT FOR OPERATION.

REMEMBER. UNA PLASTARON ANG STANDARD PROCEDURE SANG PHILPA, THEN ESTABLISH THAT THEIR
OWN NEGLIGENCE(by not observing the standard procedure) HAD CAUSED THEIR OWN LOSS AND
DAMAGE

Paps, arguments ko below dapat sequel na sang arguments ni RHEA, PAT, XYSTER about sa standard
procedure na e observe sang PHILPA before selling tickets. DAW ITS LIKE MAG START TA SANG DEFENSE
TA KAG FACTS, POINT OUT TA GID ANG ILA PROCEDURE NGA WALA SILA YA NAG OBSERVE. DASUN KITA
NALANG ILA GIN LAGAS

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ONE. Having laid down the points of argument which clearly indicates that Bowing has substantially
complied with its contractual obligation, considering that there was seasonal delivery of the plane and a
bona fide intention in installing safe and warranted features on the aircraft, it is now then appropriate to
point out that it is due to PAL’S acts which had forced them to contend with the resulting loss and damage.

Art 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages.

Xxx NEGLIGENCE: The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something, which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do. Xxx
To begin with, it is but unfortunate to fathom that such a prominent airline company is remised in
observance of its regulations and duties. For basic is the procedure in aircraft companies that a final
approval and certification of safety and airworthiness is required before an aircraft could be all set and
clear for operation. But PAL hastily sold tickets to numerous passengers immediately upon “initial”
clearance of their own technician.

In fact, PAL clearly admitted in their statement of claims, specifically in para (18) that it was only “a week
before the maiden flight or on November 5, 2018, PhilPa received a letter from CAAP dated December 4,
2018 that the application for a certificate of airworthiness for Bowing AX-010712 was DENIED”

Noteworthy is it then that an airline company cannot (does not usually?/business practice) pre-sell tickets
before the clearance of operation of the aircraft which must be preceded by the approval of CAAP by
virtue of the certificate of safety and airworthiness. However, it appears that PhilPa was in clear
transgression of the basic procedure as revealed by para (11) of PhilPa’s Statement of Claims, “upon
receipt of the notice from Bowing of the on-scheduled delivery of the subject aircraft, it prompted PhilPa
to post notices for the sale of tickets on August 11, 2018 for their Iloilo-New Zealand and vice versa flights”.

Also, XXX PROXIMATE CAUSE is defined as the “cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred. xxx

PAL is nonetheless negligent for being remised in observance of its diligence and duties thus they should
solely bear the loss that is being sued upon them. The proximate cause of the damages suffered by
passengers is due to the negligent measures performed by Philpa

TWO. More importantly, ASSUMING ARGUENDO that Bowing is negligent or fraudulent in performing its
obligation with PhilPa, the former is still released from its obligation and would not be liable for the
damage since by applying the Doctrine of the Last Clear Chance, PhilPa has within its capacity the last fair
chance to prevent the negligent act and the subsequent damage and loss suffered by the passengers.

As held in the long-time honored principle in the case of Philippine National Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No.
169891, 506 SCRA 685. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but
the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine
whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss
but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.

The Doctrine of last clear chance which speaks of PhilPa’s last opportunity to avoid the loss was even more
clearly illustrated in the case of Canlas vs. CA, GR No. 112160.

In the facts of the case in point, Canlas and Manosca were partners in a business. To pursue the same,
Canlas decided to undertake a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Manosca so that he could mortgage
the lands for a loan. Manosca was able to mortgage the land to Asian Savings Bank through the use of an
impostor with the absence of any proof of their identities. Canlas then asked for annulment of the deed
of real estate mortgage with the prayer of damages against the negligent act of the respondent Bank. The
bank interposed that Canlas must be liable for being negligent in giving Mañosca the opportunity to
perpetrate the fraud, and they are only in good faith relying on the fraudulent scheme of Manosca.
HOWEVER, the Supreme Court ruled that by applying the doctrine of last clear chance, respondent Bank
should reimburse the petitioner for being remised in observance of its diligence, particularly in approving
a loan with impostors in the absence of any proof of their identities.

xxx Assuming that Canlas was negligent in giving Vicente Mañosca the opportunity to perpetrate the fraud,
by entrusting to latter the owner's copy of the transfer certificates of title of subject parcels of land, it
cannot be denied that the bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud, by the simple expedient
of faithfully complying with the requirements for banks to ascertain the identity of the persons
transacting with them xxx

Here, it must be recalled that PAL did not observe the standard and basic procedure which is mandated
to airline companies before clearing aircrafts for operation and for selling of tickets. It shows the
proximate and direct cause of the damages incurred by the passengers and the loss they had subsequently
suffered, notwithstanding the negligence brought up by Bowing, but only for the sake of argument.

It is also worthy of mention that in taking into account the nature of PhilPa’s business, which is imbued
with public interest, their reliance on the assurance clause of the contract and the subsequent notice
given by Bowing could not outweigh the diligence which befalls on airline companies. PAL should have
traversed outside the four corners of a formal piece of paper(notice) in order to insure the air craft’s good
condition before clearing said plane for operation and the selling of tickets.

As furtherly mandated by the doctrine of last clear chance in the case of Picart vs. Smith, XXX” It will be
noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the
defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these
circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and
fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the
other party”. The appreciable interval in the present situation is manifested by the fact that PhilPa was in
control of the situation. They could have waited for the approval of the certificate of airworthiness before
the selling of tickets. (insert pila ka days mag pa approve). For then granting that such program installed
in their aircraft is defective, Philpa, having the insight on taking the necessary precautions and in waiting
the approval of the certificates, could have precluded the damage or possible damage that may affect the
public in general.

Thus, whether or not there was doubt on PhilPa’s part as to the compliance of the advanced relay program
with the standards of CAAP, it is but logical to assume that they could have discovered the featured
program’s propriety and compliance with the CAAP and thus prevent the selling of tickets should they
followed their usual routine in conducting their business operations.

- Lusot print transactions sng aaronreys1996@gmail.com

- Communications manager na ya dapat ha. XYSTER na sya. subordinate ya ka. Rhea
communications deartments engineering, “mahambal sya nga wala kodi muni nga employee”
- A person in a large business whose task is to maximize profits and make the business more
efficient.
- OPTIMIZER:
- Intervals
The advanced relay is a built-in optimizing program which brings out the maximum efficiency of the three
axis auto pilot overall system. Specifically, is directed to enhance the functional system of the central
processing unit of the three axis auto pilot.

Special cert of airworthiness from CAAP.

STALL:

In fluid dynamics, a stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient generated by a foil as angle of attack increases.
This occurs when the critical angle of attack of the foil is exceeded.

DENY:

Annex C

- Butigon sila. Sa SOC, august 8 naka butang

- Wala received by
- Forged signatures

ANNEX D

- MCAS ila definition.

- Wala received
- Provide sng aton definition sang advanced relay
- Annex D is a fabrication. It is absurd to address this to the CEO, Muilenberg.
- If there was indeed a communication, it should be done by Desiree one of the designated
employees in the communications department in the global services of bowing. And noted by
- Vice President, Communications, Boeing Global Services
- Conrad Chun
And by the engineering department, prepared by Marco Parce, and noted by
Vice President, Engineering, Modifications & Maintenance, Boeing Glob
Joan Robinson-Berry

Annex E

- aaronreyes@bowing.com is a dummy account. Fictitious email

- Provide true gmail which is being used in business transactions.
- Xyster (Manager, communications, bowing global services) cgs.cm@bowing.usa
- Dess (secretary, communications, bowing global services) cgs.comsec@bowing.usa
- Marco (secretary, engineering, bowing global services) mmgs.sec@bowing.usa
- Rhea (Reserved)
- Emman (Corporate Secretary, bowing company) cs@bowing.usa
- Aaron Reyes (Authorized Representative of Bowing in preparing and signing the contract of
agreement / secretary, business and general aviation, bowing global services) (Reserved)
bgags.sec@bowing.com

Argument for art 1267

 More importantly, therefore, the denial of the certificate of airworthiness applied by Philpa for the reason
that “...the plane was not cleared for takeoff due to the auto-pilot advance relay feature which was not
tried and tested by the Pilots Association of the Philippines...”, has no relevance as to the compliance of
Bowing in its contractual obligation. Further, their allegation under the same paragraph asserting that
“...the said advance relay feature has never been heard of by the Philippine Pilots Association” has no
bearing at all.

In this regard, the application of Article 1267 of the New Civil Code is in need of emphasis. It thus states
“When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties,
the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.” Citing the comments of the reports of
the code commission in the Civil Code as regards this Article, “the intention of the parties should govern
and if it appears that the service turns out to be so difficult as to have been beyond their contemplation,
it would be doing violence to that intention to hold the obligor still responsible.

Under the contract of agreement, there is no such stipulation which warrants the pre-requisite of a trial
and examination before the Pilots Association of the Philippines, CAAP’s office tasked with flight testing,
nor any condition which warrants the pre-requisite knowledge and recognitions of the Pilot’s Association
as to the modifications/features to be installed in the subject aircraft. For it is thus clear under the contract
of agreement that it shall be subject only to the compliance with the standards, rules and requirements
of the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines’ (CAAP) Civil Aviation Rules and of the International Civil
Aviation Organization with prior notice to the Philpa. But this requirement, has been outstandingly
complied with by Bowing in the first place. Clearly then, such issue as raised by Philpa, if it indeed be true,
is clearly beyond the contemplation of the parties or the contract of agreement between Philpa and
Bowing.

IN Annex C, the purported letter had never been received by Bowing. There should have been a stamped
notice from the secretary of the global services department of Bowing annotated in the letter. Further, if
it was indeed the intention of PhilPa to communicate with Mr. Earl Aaron Reyes, Bowing’s Authorized
Representative in this subject business transaction, they should have informed him thru his valid and
existing business email. Herein attached screen captures of Mr. Earl Aaron Reyes’ Email, showing several
business and work-related transactions which the same had engaged into. (ANNEX __). In line with this
point of argument, PhilPa would again be guilty of misrepresentation as demonstrated by Annex E of their
work. “aaronreyes@bowing.com” is a sham, fake, fictitious and dummy account, if not inexistent. Quite
interestingly, Quite interestingly, why would Li Anne Care Roth be Mr. Earl Aaron Reyes’ email account,
as reflected in Annex E of PhilPa that the email was “sincerely” prepared and sent by Li Anne Care Roth

Annex D is much more dishonorable. For again, any business-related communication as to the project:
“REMODELING OF BOWING AX-010712” could only be initiated or prepared by the authorized representative, Mr.
Earl Aaron P. Reyes, of the said business transaction, or its Private Assistant, Ms. Desiree Jane Tubaon. Farcically,
however, Annex D as submitted by PhilPa contains a sign and a name that the letter was prepared by the Chief
Executive Officer of the whole company, Dennis Muilenberg, and noted by Li Anne Care Roth as they allege as the
Senior VP. CEO Dennis Muilenberg has never been tasked nor would never engage into any communications with
business partners/customers. Chief executive officer (CEO), Dennis Muilenberg, is the highest-ranking executive in
the company, and his primary responsibilities include making major corporate decisions, managing the overall
operations and resources of a company. Though he is not precluded to act as the main point of communication
between the board of directors and corporate operations, nevertheless, such communication is limited to corporate
matters only. Communications regarding business transactions with partners/customers are not within his line of
duty and given the fact that there is already a designated representative to act on this matter.

Also, Li Anne Care Roth is a fictitious person. Such person is not known in the company, as gleaned from ANNEX_
table of the organization of officers. Granting that such was the Senior VP, the same argument in the previous
paragraph would follow that there is a designated authorized representative., Mr. Earl Aaron P. Reyes, entrusted
and tasked to conduct negotiations with PhilPa.