BULATAO, NLJR , 3.

PAL Flight 477 Zapatos opted to return Upon arrival of the

Topic: II.Common Carrier; C. Common Carriage of Passengers; arrived at Cotabato City to Cebu. plane, the PAL Station
2.Duration of Responsibility Agent informed the 21
However, he was NOT
accommodated passengers of their
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, options
because he checked-in
vs. Option #1. To return to
as passenger No. 9 on
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO ZAPATOS, respondents. Cebu on PAL Flight
Flight 477.
GR No L-82619September 15, 1993 First Division He insisted on being 560 (different plane) of
BELLOSILLO, J.: given priority over the the same day and
confirmed passengers thence to Ozamiz City
Brief FACTS: in the accommodation, on 4 August 1975.
Respondent PEDRO ZAPATOS filed a COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR but the Station Agent Take Note: (He also
BREACH OF CONTRACT against PAL. refused his demand informed the
He alleged the following (I will present the events in table form, I think the explaining that his passengers that Flight
facts particularly the events and corresponding actions/steps of PAL and predicament was not 560 bound for Manila
passenger Zapatos are very important in this case): due to PAL's own doing would make a stop-
Event Respondent Zapatos Phil Airlines (common but to be a FORCE over at Cebu to bring
(passenger) carrier) MAJEURE. some of the diverted
passengers.However,
1. Aug 02, 1976, flight Included in the 21 (Ibig sabihin, from ONLY six (6) seats are
of PAL airplane passengers Cebu, mag-stop over available as there were
FLIGHT 477 carrying ang eroplano sa already confirmed
21 passengers. Route Ozamis City, then passengers for Manila.
is from Cebu-Ozamiz- proceed sa Cotabato) Further, the BASIS for
Cotabato priority would be the
CHECK-IN sequence at
2. However, fifteen(15) Siyempre, nasa Pilot received a radio Cebu.)
MINUTES before eroplano pa rin siya message that the Option #2. To take the
landing of FLIGHT 477 airport WAS CLOSED next flight to Cebu the
at Ozamiz City. DUE TO HEAVY following day,
RAINS. Option #3 Remain at
As a result the PILOT Cotabato and take the
proceeded to Cotabato next available flight to
Ozamiz City on 5
August 1975.
 4. When FLIGHT 560 He tried to stop the Did not heed to the contract.
was about to depart flight. plea of passenger
He alleged that his 3. Supreme Court PAL filed for petition for Affirmed the decision
Zapatos. review on Certiorari with modification in
personal belongings,
including a package (Purpose: To annul and terms of award of
containing a camera set aside the decision of damages. IT REDUCED
which a certain Miwa IAC) THE AMOUNT OF
from Japan asked him MORAL AND
to deliver to Mrs. Fe EXEMPLARY
Obid of Gingoog City, DAMAGES. It also
were still on board. deleted the award of
(These were not actual damage.
returned)
.
Subsequent events... He received the ticket PAL issued a FREE
UNDER PROTEST ticket to passenger
Zapatos which is bound Argument of MACEDA in his Answer of PAL
TO ILIGAN CITY PETITION FOR REVIEW

Afterwhich, He WAS PAL 1.PAL remiss in its duty of extending 1. The award of damages was
LEFT at the airport (dito #1.DID NOT provided utmost care to private respondent unfounded.
din nag-focus yung passenger Zapatos with while being stranded in Cotabato 2. Presented the report of the duties
decision) transportation from the City. that indicated that PAL's
airport to the city proper 2. PAL failed to inform him about his personnel accommodated the
#2. DID NOT provided non-accommodation on Flight 560 queries of Zapatos and
food and accommodation and was inattentive to his related challenged that of the total
for passenger Zapatos queries. number of passengers, only
stay in Cotabato City. Zapatos claimed that he was not
informed.

FLOW OF THE CASE: ISSUE#1: Whether or not PAL failed to meet the standard provided by the
law as a common carrier in relation to its passenger Zapatos.
VENUE ACTION DECISION

1. CFI (now Regional respondent Pedro 1.Rendered decision in HELD and RATIO:
Trial Court) Zapatos filed a favor of passenger
complaint for damages Zapatos and ordered The Court ruled that PAL grossly failed to perform its duty as a
for breach of contract PAL to pay damages carrier in relation to its passenger. Here the Court described that the contract
of air carriage is a peculiar one.
2. Court of Appeals Appeal 1.Affirmed the decision Article 1755 of the New Civil Code provides that it is imbued with
of the CFI public interest, hence the law requires common carriers to carry the
2.Declared PAL liable in passengers safely AS FAR AS HUMAN CARE AND FORESIGHT CAN
damages for breach of PROVIDE, using the UTMOST DILIGENCE OF VERY CAUTIOUS
PERSONS, with due regard for all the circumstances.
 It stressed the ruling in Aboitiz vs CA that the relation of carrier and
passenger CONTINUES UNTIL #1.THE LATTER HAS BEEN LANDED at
the port of destination And #2. HAS LEFT the carrier's premises.
Applying this in the case at bar, PAL necessarily would still have to
exercise extraordinary diligence IN SAFEGUARDING the #1.Comfort,
#2.Convenience and #3. Safety of its STRANDED PASSENGERS (including
Mr Zapatos) UNTIL THEY HAVE REACHED THEIRFINAL DESTINATION.
HOWEVER, PAL grossly failed since there was an ongoing battle
between government forces and Muslim rebels in Cotabato City and the fact
that passenger Zapatos was a stranger to the place.
The Court even quoted the decision of the CA, ", it becomes the duty
of defendant to provide all means of comfort and convenience to its
passengers when they would have to be left in a strange place in case of
such by-passing."

ISSUE#2: Whether or not PAL is exempt from liability since the non-
fulfillment of the contract is due to fortuitous event.

HELD and RATIO:

The Court ruled that in addition to the abovementioned findings, that

in reading Article 1755 and Article 1733 the fortuitous event MUST BE THE
#1.SOLE and #2.ONLY CAUSE
In the case at bar, since part of the failure to comply with the
obligation of common carrier to deliver its passengers safely to their
destination lay in PAL'SFAILURETO PROVIDE COMFORT AND
CONVENIENCE TO ITS STRANDED PASSENGERS USING EXTRA-
ORDINARY DILIGENCE, the cause of non-fulfillment is NOT solely and
exclusively due to fortuitous event, BUT DUE to something which defendant
airline COULD HAVE PREVENTED. Hence, PAL is liable to passenger
Zapatos.