Scribd
Upload
28 views1 page

04 Quiz 1 Estore

The document describes an incident on a 1968 Philippine Airlines flight from Mactan City to Manila, where a passenger noticed a known criminal on board. Gunshots were exchanged between the criminal and another passenger. The plane was hijacked and passengers had their belongings stolen upon landing. The question asks whether this incident would be considered an unexpected force majeure event exempting the airline from liability.

Uploaded by

Prince Ianjay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views1 page

04 Quiz 1 Estore

The document describes an incident on a 1968 Philippine Airlines flight from Mactan City to Manila, where a passenger noticed a known criminal on board. Gunshots were exchanged between the criminal and another passenger. The plane was hijacked and passengers had their belongings stolen upon landing. The question asks whether this incident would be considered an unexpected force majeure event exempting the airline from liability.

Uploaded by

Prince Ianjay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Name: Ianjay Estore

Case: On November 6, 1968, Philippine Airlines (PAL’s) Fokker “Friendship” PIC-536 left Mactan City
for the City of Manila. After the plane had taken off, Florencio O. Villarin, a Senior NBI Agent who was
also a passenger of the said plane, noticed a certain “Zaldy,” a suspect in the killing of Judge Valdez,
seated at the front seat near the door leading to the cockpit of the plane. Zaldy had used the name
“Cardente” in his plane ticket and had three (3) companions on board the plane. Villarin then
scribbled a note addressed to the pilot of the plane requesting the latter to contact NBI duty agents in
Manila for the said agents to ask the Director of the NBI to send about six (6) NBI agents to meet the
plane because the suspect in the killing of Judge Valdes was on board the plane. The said note was
handed by Villarin to the stewardess, who in turn gave the same to the pilot. After receiving the note,
which was about 15 minutes after take- off, the pilot of the plane came out of the cockpit and sat
beside Villarin at the rear portion of the plane and explained that he could not send the message
because it would be heard by all ground aircraft stations. Villarin, however, told the pilot of the
danger of the commission of violent acts onboard the plane by the notorious Zaldy and his three (3)
companions. While the pilot and Villarin were talking, Zaldy and one (1) of his companions walked to
the rear and stood behind them. The pilot then stood up and went back to the cockpit. Zaldy and his
companions returned to their seats. Soon thereafter, an exchange of gunshots ensued between
Villarin and Zaldy and the latter’s companions. Zaldy announced to the passengers and the pilots in
the cockpit that it was a hijack. The hijackers divested the passengers of their belongings. Upon
landing at the Manila International Airport, Zaldy and his three (3) companions succeeded in escaping.
Norberto Quisumbing Sr., one of the passengers of the plane, filed an action against Philippine
Airlines to recover the value of jewelry, other valuables, and money taken from him by four (4) armed
robbers on board the latter’s airplane while on a flight Mactan City to Manila, as well as moral and
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation. Such loss is a result of the breach of
PAL’s contractual obligation to carry him and his belongings and effects to Manila without loss or
damage and constitutes a serious dereliction of PAL’s legal duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over the same. In its defense, Philippine Airlines alleges that the robbery during the flight
and after the aircraft was forcibly landed at the Manila Airport did indeed constitute force majeure.

Question: Is the incident onboard the airplane Flight Fokker “Friendship” PIC-536 considered force
majeure, which exempts Philippine Airlines from liability? Support your answer.

- The incident on Flight Fokker “Friendship” PIC-536, like the hijacking and robbery, might be seen as
force majeure. This means it was an unexpected event that PAL couldn't control, like a natural
disaster. PAL could say they did their best to prevent such things but couldn't predict or stop the
hijacking and robbery. Florencio O. Villarin's actions show that the situation was unexpected and not
PAL's fault.

However, whether this counts as force majeure and lets PAL off the hook from liability depends on
the specific details of the case, like PAL's security rules, the type of criminal acts, and any proof of PAL
being careless.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy