PAL v CA
G.R. No. L-46558 | July 31, 1981 | Guerrero, J.
Topic: Common Carriage of Passengers; Nature and extent of responsibility – Arts.
1733, 1755
Petitioner: Philippine Air Lines, Inc.
Respondents: The Court of Appeals and Jesus V. Samson
Doctrine: The law is clear in requiring a common carrier to exercise the highest
degree of care in the discharge of its duty and business of carriage and transportation
under Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the New Civil Code.
Facts
On July 1, 1954, Jesus V. Samson filed a complaint averring that:
 On Jan 8, 1951, he flew as co-pilot on a regular flight from Manila to Legaspi
with stops at Daet, Camarines Norte and Pili, Camarines Sur, with Captain
Delfin Bustamante as commanding pilot of a C-47 plane belonging to PAL;
 On attempting to land the plane at Daet airport, Captain Delfin Bustamante
due to his very slow reaction and poor judgment overshot the airfield and as
a result, notwithstanding the diligent efforts of the plaintiff co-pilot to avert an
accident, the airplane crashlanded beyond the runway;
 The jolt caused Samson’s head to hit and break through the thick front
windshield of the airplane causing him severe brain concussion, wounds and
abrasions on the forehead with intense pain and suffering
 Instead of giving Samson expert and proper medical treatment called for by
the nature and severity of his injuries, PAL simply referred him to a company
physician, a general medical practitioner, who limited the treatment to the
exterior injuries without examining his severe brain concussion
 Several days after the accident, PAL called Samson back to active duty as co-
pilot, and inspite of the latter’s repeated request for expert medical assistance,
PAL had not given him any
 As a consequence of the brain injury Samson sustained from the crash, he
had been having periodic dizzy spells and had been suffering from general
debility and nervousness
 Instead of submitting Samson to expert medical treatment, PAL discharged
him from its employ on December 21, 1953 on grounds of physical disability,
thereby causing Samson not only to lose his job but to become physically unfit
to continue as aviator due to PAL’s negligence in not giving him the proper
medical attention
 Samson prayed for damages in the amount of P180,000.00 representing his
unearned income, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and P5,000.00 as expenses, or a total of P255,000.00.
In its answer filed on July 28, 1954, PAL denied the substantial averments in the
complaint, alleging among others, that:
 The accident was due solely and exclusively to inevitable unforeseen
circumstances whereby Samson sustained only superficial wounds and minor
injuries which were promptly treated by PAL’s medical personnel
 Samson did not sustain brain injury or cerebral concussion from the accident
since he passed the annual physical and medical examination given thereafter
on April 24, 1951;
 The headaches and dizziness experienced by Samson were due to emotional
disturbance over his inability to pass the required up-grading or promotional
course given by PAL
 As confirmed by an expert neuro-surgeon, Samson was suffering from
neurosis and in view of this unfitness and disqualification from continuing as
a pilot, defendant had to terminate plaintiff’s employment
 By the very nature of its business as a common carrier, it is bound to
employ only pilots who are proficient and in good mental, emotional and
physical condition;
o The pilot, Captain Bustamante, was a competent and proficient
pilot, and although he was already afflicted with a tumor of the
nasopharynx even before the accident of January 8, 1951, the
Civil Aeronautics Administration, in passing upon the fitness of
pilots, gave Capt. Bustamante a waiver of physical standards to
enable him to retain his first class airman certificate since the
affliction had not in the least affected his proficiency
 By way of counterclaim, PAL prayed for P10,000 as expenses for the litigation.
Procedural
 March 25, 1958  PAL filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
complaint is essentially a Workmen’s Compensation claim
o Motion to Dismiss denied
 TC: ruled in favor of Samson
 CA: affirmed TC, modified damages by imposing legal rate of interest on
P198,000 unearned income from filiing of complaint
o PAL filed Motion for Reconsideration; denied
 Hence, this instant petition for certiorari
Issue
W/N PAL is liable to Samson – YES
Held
Re: PAL’s contention that there is no causal connection between: the accident and (1)
Samson’s periodic dizzy spells etc (2) Samson’s discharge from employment
 The CA found the following essential facts of the case:
o Samson, a licensee aviator, was employed by PAL a few years prior
to 1951 as a regular co-pilot on a guaranteed basic salary of
P750/month. He was paired with pilot Delfin Bustamante.
o Sometime in December 1950, he complained to PAL through its
authorized official about the slow reaction and poor judgment of pilot
Bustamante. Notwithstanding said complaint, PAL allowed the pilot
to continue flying.
o On January 8, 1951, the accident occurred (reiterated facts as told
by Samson in his complaint)
 PAL claims:
o Said facts are not fully borne out by the evidence on record; injuries
suffered by Samson during the accident were superficial in nature
 o No negligence can be attributed to Capt. Bustamante much less to
PAL for the accident, hence PAL cannot be held liable for damages.
o There is no causal connection between Samson’s superficial injuries
and his alleged “periodic spells, headache and general debility.”
 These subsequent ailments were found by competent
physician1, including an expert neuro-surgeon, to be due to
emotional disturbances
o There is no causal connection between respondent’s superficial
injuries sustained during the accident and plaintiff’s discharge from
employment with PAL.
 It was the repeated recurrence of Samson’s neurasthenic
symptoms which prompted PAL’s Flight Surgeon, Dr.
Bernardo, to recommend that Samson be grounded
permanently as respondent was “psychologically unfit to
resume his duties as pilot.”
 Samson’s eventual discharge from employment with PAL
was effected for absolutely valid reasons, and only after he
was thoroughly examined and found unfit to carry out his
responsibilities and duties as a pilot.
 Court: We agree with the CA in finding that the dizzy spells, headache and
general debility of Samson was an after-effect of the crash-landing
o There were other similar physical examinations conducted by the
CAA. Obviously, only those which suited defendants cause were
hand-picked and offered in evidence.
o Dr. Bernardo admittedly referred to Dr. Reyes because he could not
determine the cause of the dizzy spells and headache and the latter
admitted that ‘it is extremely hard to be certain of the cause of his
dizzy spells,’ and suggested a possibility that it ‘was due to
postraumatic syndrome, evidently due to the injuries suffered by the
plaintiff in hitting the forehead against the windshield of the plane
during the accident.’ Judgment are not based on possibilities.
 The admitted difficulty of defendant’s doctors in determining the cause of the
dizzy spells and headache cannot be a sound basis for finding against the
plaintiff and in favor of defendant. We are prone to believe the testimony of
the plaintiff’s doctors.2
Re: PAL’s gross negligence – MAIN!!
1Dr. Trajano V. Bernardo: Samson’s complaints were “psychosomatic symptoms” on the basis of declarations
made by respondent himself; when he examined Samson three days after the accident, the wound was already
healed and found nothing wrong with his ears, nose and throat so that he was declared fit for duty after the sixth
day
Drs. Damaceno J. Ago and Villaraza: Samson was suffering from neurosis
Dr. Victor Reyes (neurological specialist): the symptoms were most probably due to psychogenic factors and
have no organic basis.
Dr. Manuel S. Sayas: declared that he removed the band-aid on Samson’s forehead; he found that the latter
had two contussed superficial wounds over the supra orbiter regions or just above the eyes measuring one
centimeter long and one millimeter deep. He examined and found his blood pressure normal, no discharges
from the nose and ears.
 We also find the imputation of gross negligence by CA to PAL for having
allowed Capt. Bustamante to fly on that fateful day to be correct
 CA findings
o “The pilot was sick. He admittedly had tumor of the
nasopharynx cranad(nose). He is now in the Great Beyond. The spot
is very near the brain and the eyes. Tumor on the spot will affect the
sinus, the breathing, the eyes which are very near it. No one will
certify the fitness to fly a plane of one suffering from the disease.
o “The fact First Pilot Bustamante has a long standing tumor of the
Nasopharynx for which reason he was grounded since November
1947 is admitted in the letter of Dr. Bernardo to the Medical Director
of the CAA requesting waiver of physical standards.
 The request for waiver of physical standards is itself a
positive proof that the physical condition of Capt.
Bustamante is short of the standard set by the CAA.
 The Deputy Administrator of the CAA granted the request relying on the
representation and recommendation made by Dr. Bernardo
o We noted, however, that the request says that ‘it is believed that his
continuing to fly as a co-pilot does not involve any hazard.’
 Flying as a First Officer entails a very different responsibility than flying as a
mere co-pilot. PAL requested the CAA 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.
o For having allowed Bustamante to fly as a First Officer on
January 8, 1951, PAL is guilty of gross negligence and therefore
should be made liable for the resulting accident.
 As established by the evidence, the pilot used to get treatments from Dr.
Sycangco. He used to complain of pain in the face more particularly in the
nose which caused him to have sleepless nights. Samson’s observation of the
pilot was reported to the Chief Pilot who did nothing about it.
o Captain Carbonel of PAL corroborated plaintiff of this matter. The
complaint against the slow reaction of the pilot at least proved the
observation. The observation could be disregarded. The fact that the
complaint was not in writing does not detract anything from the
seriousness thereof, considering that a miscalculation would not only
cause the death of the crew but also of the passengers.
 One month prior to the crash-landing, when the pilot was preparing to land in
Daet, Samson warned him that they were not in the vicinity of Daet but above
2 Dr. Morales (surgeon): found that blood was coming from Samson’s ears and nose. He testified that plaintiff
was suffering from cerebral concussion as a result of traumatic injury to the brain caused by his head hitting on
the windshield during the crash-landing
Dr. Conrado Aramil (neurologist and psychiatrist with experience in two hospitals abroad): found abnormality
reflected by the electroencephalogram examination in the frontal area on both sides of plaintiff’s head
The opinion of these two specialist renders unnecessary that of Samson’s wife (physician); because of her
relation to the Samson, her testimony and opinion may not be discussed here, although her testimony is
crystallized by the opinions of Dr. Ador Dionisio, Dr. Marquez, Dr. Jose O. Chan, Dr. Yambao and Dr. Sandico.
 the town of Ligao. The plane hit outside the airstrip. In another instance, the
pilot would hit the Mayon Volcano had not Samson warned him.
o These more than prove what Samson had complained of. Disregard
thereof by defendant is condemnable.
 To bolster the claim that Capt. Bustamante has not suffered from any kind of
sickness which hampered his flying ability, PAL contends that for at least one
or more years following the accident of January 8, 1951, Capt. Bustamante
continued to fly for PAL as a pilot, and did so with great skill and proficiency,
and without any further accident or mishap,
o We have painstakingly perused the records, particularly the
transcript of stenographic notes cited, but found nothing therein to
substantiate appellant’s contention.
o Instead, We discovered that the citation covers the testimony of Dr.
Bernardo on the physical condition of Bustamante and nothing about
his skills or proficiency to fly nor on the mishaps or accidents, matters
which are beyond Dr. Bernardo’s competence anyway.
 Assuming that the pilot was not sick or that the tumor did not affect the pilot in
managing the plane, the evidence shows that the overshooting of the runway
and crash-landing at the mangrove was caused by the pilot for which acts the
defendant must answer for damages caused thereby.
o And for this negligence of defendant’s employee, it is liable. At least,
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.
 PAL would want to tie Samson to the report he signed about the crash-landing.
The report was prepared by his pilot and because the latter pleaded that he
had a family too and would have nowhere to go if he lost his job, Samson’s
compassion would not upturn the truth about the crash-landing. We are for the
truth not logic of any argumentation.
o At any rate, it is incorrect to say that the Accident Report signed by
Samson exculpated Capt. Bustamante from any fault.
o We observed that the Report does not categorically state that Capt.
Bustamante was not at fault. It merely relates in chronological
sequence what Capt. Bustamante and plaintiff did from the take-off
from Manila to the landing in Daet which resulted in an accident.
o On the contrary, we may infer the negligence of Bustamante from the
following portion of the Report: “I felt his brakes strong but as we
neared the intersection of the NE-SW runway, the brakes were not
as strong and I glanced at the system pressure which indicated 900
lbs. per sq. m.”
 It was during the above precise instance that Capt.
Bustamante lost his bearing and disposition. Had he
maintained the pressure on the brakes the plane would not
3Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to
observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported
by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734, and 1745,
Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles
1755 and 1756.
have overshot the runway. Verily, Bustamante displayed
slow reaction and poor judgment.
 It is not the task of this Court to discharge the functions of a trier of facts much
less to enter into a calibration of the evidence, notwithstanding petitioner’s wail
that the judgment of the respondent court is based entirely on speculations,
surmises and conjectures. We are convinced that respondent court’s
judgment is supported by strong, clear and substantial evidence.
 Petitioner is a common carrier engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for
compensation, offering their services to the public, as defined in Art.
1732, New Civil Code.
o The law is clear in requiring a common carrier to exercise the
highest degree of care in the discharge of its duty and business
of carriage and transportation under Arts. 17333, 17554 and
17565 NCC.
 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, the airplane in the case at bar.
o And this must be so for any omission, lapse or neglect thereof
will certainly result to the damage, prejudice, nay injuries and
even death to all aboard the plane, passengers and crew
members alike.
Re damages
 TC: Samson was entitled to P198,000.00 as unearned income or
compensatory damages; P50,000.00 for moral damages, P20,000.00 as
attorney’s fees and P5,000.00 as expenses of litigation, or a total of
P273,000.00.
 CA: modified the above award by ordering payment of legal interest on the
P198,000.00 unearned income from the filing of the claim, citing Sec. 8, Rule
51 of the Rules of Court.
 Court: The correct amount of compensatory damages upon which legal
interest shall accrue from the filing of the complaint is P204,000.00 as herein
computed and not P198,000.00.
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. SO ORDERED.
4 Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passenger safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
5Art. 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 they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in
Articles 1733 and 1755.