Title
Gacal vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 55300
Decision Date
Mar 15, 1990
Passengers injured during a 1976 PAL hijacking by MNLF members sought damages; SC ruled hijacking a force majeure, exempting PAL from liability.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 55300)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Proceedings
    • Petitioners Franklin G. Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal (assisted by her husband) filed Civil Case No. 1701 for damages against Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of South Cotabato, Branch I.
    • Three consolidated cases for damages (Nos. 1701, 1773, 1797) were dismissed by the CFI on August 26, 1980, as being caused by force majeure.
  • Hijacking Incident
    • On May 21, 1976, petitioners and other passengers boarded PAL BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport for Manila. Six armed hijackers (members of the MNLF) were undiscovered co-passengers.
    • Ten minutes after takeoff, the hijackers announced the seizure, ordered flight to Libya, then to Sabah, and ultimately to land at Zamboanga for refueling.
  • Standoff and Rescue
    • Upon landing at Zamboanga (3:00 p.m.), the hijackers made political and ransom demands, threatened to blow up the plane, and denied passengers food and water until May 23.
    • A military assault ensued when relatives of hijackers left the plane. The rescue left ten passengers and three hijackers dead on the spot; three hijackers were captured.
  • Injuries, Damages, and Procedural History
    • Mrs. Corazon Gacal suffered injuries from bullets and grenade blasts, incurring P245.60 in hospital expenses. Elma de Guzman died; Mrs. Mansueta Anislag suffered an elbow fracture costing P4,500.
    • Petitioners appealed on pure questions of law to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari (filed October 20, 1980). Both parties filed briefs; petitioners did not file a reply brief.

Issues:

  • Whether the hijacking of PAL Flight RP-C1161 during Martial Law constituted a fortuitous event or force majeure that exempts PAL from liability as a common carrier.
  • Whether PAL failed in its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence under Article 1733 of the Civil Code by not detecting the hijackers carrying weapons.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.