Iii. Degree of Care Required of A Common Carrier (Section 1733)

III.
DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED OF A COMMON CARRIER (SECTION 1733)
G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993

PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO ZAPATOS, respondents.
INC., petitioner,
Facts: August 2, 1976, Pedro Zapatos was among the 21 passengers of PAL Flight 477 that
took off from Cebu bound for Ozamiz City. The routing of this flight was Cebu-OzamizCotabato. While on flight and just about 15 minutes before landing at Ozamiz City, the pilot
received a radio message that the airport was closed due to heavy rains and inclement
weather and that he should proceed to Cotabato City instead.
Upon arrival at Cotabato City, the PAL Station Agent informed the passengers of the
following options:
1) to return to Cebu on flight 560 of the same day and thence to Ozamiz City on 4 August
1975, or
2) take the next flight to Cebu the following day, or
3) remain at Cotabato and take the next available flight to Ozamiz City on 5 August 1975.
Zapatos chose to return to Cebu but was not accommodated because only 6 seats were
available and he checked-in as passenger No. 9 on Flight 477. He insisted on being given
priority over the confirmed passengers in the accommodation, but the Station Agent refused
Zapatos demand.
Private respondent tried to stop the departure of Flight 560 as his personal belongings were
still on board. His plea fell on deaf ears. PAL then issued to him a free ticket to Iligan city,
which the latter received under protest. Private respondent was left at the airport and could
not even hitch a ride in the car loaded with PAL personnel. PAL neither provided private
respondent with transportation from the airport to the city proper nor food and
accommodation for his stay in Cotabato City. Subsequently, Zapatos went to Iligan City; his
personal belongings were no longer recovered.
Zapatos filed a complaint for damages for breach of contract of carriage against Philippine
Airlines, Inc. (PAL), before the Regional Trial Court, of Misamis Occidental, at Ozamiz City.
PAL filed its answer denying that it unjustifiably refused to accommodate private
respondent. It alleged that there was simply no more seat for private respondent on Flight
560 since there were only six (6) seats available and the priority of accommodation on Flight
560 was based on the check-in sequence in Cebu; that the first six (6) priority passengers on
Flight 477 chose to take Flight 560.
Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Zapatos and awarded damages in his favor.
PAL argues that the award for damages is unfounded, asserting that it should not be charged
with the task of looking after the passengers' comfort and convenience because the
diversion of the flight was due to a fortuitous event, and that if made liable, an added
burden is given to PAL which is over and beyond its duties under the contract of carriage. It
submits that granting arguendo that negligence exists, PAL cannot be liable in damages in
the absence of fraud or bad faith.
ISSUE: WON PAL is liable for damages for its breach of contract of carriage
HELD: YES
The position taken by PAL in this case clearly illustrates its failure to grasp the exacting
standard required by law. Undisputably, PAL's diversion of its flight due to inclement weather
was a fortuitous event. Nonetheless, such occurrence did not terminate PAL's contract with
its passengers. Being in the business of air carriage and the sole one to operate in the
country, PAL is deemed equipped to deal with situations as in the case at bar. What we said
in one case once again must be stressed, i.e., the relation of carrier and passenger
continues until the latter has been landed at the port of destination and has left the carrier's
premises. Hence, PAL necessarily would still have to exercise extraordinary diligence in
safeguarding the comfort, convenience and safety of its stranded passengers until they have
reached their final destination. On this score, PAL grossly failed considering the then ongoing
battle between government forces and Muslim rebels in Cotabato City and the fact that the
private respondent was a stranger to the place.
The contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Being imbued with public interest, the law
requires common carriers to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances. In Air France v. Carrascoso, we held that
A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any other
contractual relation. And this, because of the relation which an air carrier sustains with the
public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites people to avail of the
comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage, therefore, generates a
relation attended with a public duty.

Iii. Degree of Care Required of A Common Carrier (Section 1733)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iii. Degree of Care Required of A Common Carrier (Section 1733)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iii. Degree of Care Required of A Common Carrier (Section 1733)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

III.

DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED OF A COMMON CARRIER (SECTION 1733)

G.R. No. L-82619 September 15, 1993

You might also like

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