ABETO v.

PAL
115 SCRA 489 (1982)
TOPIC: Obligation of the Carrier, Duty to Exercise Extraordinary Diligence, Carriage of Passengers

FACTS:
1. Judge Quirico Abeto boarded the Philippine Airline' PI- C133 plane at the Mandurriao Airport,
Iloilo City for Manila.
2. The plane did not reach its destination and after 3 weeks, it was ascertained that the it crashed at
Mt. Baco, Province of Mindoro. There were no survivors of the crash.
3. Condrada Vda. de Abeto , the wife of the deceased, was appointed administratrix of the estate of
Judge Abeto.
4. Condrada, together with her children filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Airlines for
the death of Judge Abeto.
5. Philippine Airlines, on the other hand, contends that the plane crash was was due to a fortuitous
event and presented the following defenses:
The accident was beyond the control of the pilot.
The plane was airworthy for the purpose conveying passengers across the country as shown
by the certificate of airworthiness issued by the Civil Aeronautics Administration.
There was navigational error but no negligence or malfeasance on the part of the pilot and the
plane had undergone pre-flight checks, thorough checks, terminating checks and after maintenance
checks.
The deviation from its prescribed route was due to bad weather condition.

ISSUE: Is Philippine Airlines liable for violation of its contract of carriage?

RULING: YES.
PAL is liable for the death of Judge Abeto:

The plane did not take the designated route which was Iloilo-Romblon-Manila or "Amber I", if it
had taken this route, then the crash would have not happened. This was supported by the statements
of Ramon Peroza (Administrative assistant of Philippine Air Lines Inc.) and Cesar Mijares
(Assistant Director the Civil Aeronautics Administration).
The weather during that time was clear and the pilot was supposed to cross airway "Amber I"'
instead he made a straight flight to Manila in violation of air traffic rules.
Since theres no satisfactory explanation by PAL with regard to the accident, then the
presumption is it is at fault.
Art. 1756 - in case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it is proven that they observed extra ordinary
diligence.
Art. 1773 - binds common carriers from the nature of their business and by reason of public policy
to observe extraordinary in vigilance for the safety of the passengers transported by them according
to all the circumstances of each case.
Art. 1755 - a common carrier is required to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of every cautious persons, with due regard for all
the circumstances.
Art. 1757 - the responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers cannot be dispensed
with or lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise.