Case Summary (G.R. No. 51806)
Petitioner
Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), an executive agency empowered by Executive Order No. 365 and Republic Act No. 776 to administer, operate, manage, maintain, improve and develop the Manila International Airport, with authority to sue and be sued.
Respondent
Ernest E. Simke, private respondent and plaintiff below; Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s award of damages.
Key Dates
– December 13, 1968: Accident on airport terrace.
– December 14, 1968: Surgical operation on respondent.
– November 8, 1988: Supreme Court decision.
– June 20, 1952: Enactment of Republic Act No. 776.
– 1981 and 1985: Rulings in Rayo v. Courts of First Instance and Malong v. Philippine National Railways, reaffirming proprietary-function exceptions to sovereign immunity.
Applicable Law
– Executive Order No. 365 (Reorganizing CAA).
– Republic Act No. 776, Sec. 32(24)-(25) (powers to operate, contract, collect fees).
– New Civil Code Articles 1173 (diligence), 2176 (quasi-delict liability), 2179 (contributory negligence), 2199 (proof of actual damages), 2208 (attorney’s fees), 2217–2219 (moral damages), 2229, 2231 (exemplary damages).
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1987 jurisprudential context).
Facts
Respondent and companions ascended the crowded terrace to meet a family member’s inbound flight. He tripped on an unmarked, four-inch elevation in the tiled floor—an inclined “step” lacking warning signs—and fell, fracturing his thigh. He underwent a three-hour operation the following day. He sued CAA for reimbursement of medical expenses, consequential losses (lawyers’ travel costs, wedding postponement notices), moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Trial court awarded P15,589.55 (medical), P20,200 (consequential), P30,000 (moral), P40,000 (exemplary), and P20,000 (attorney’s fees). Court of Appeals affirmed; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues
- Whether the CAA, as a government agency, enjoys immunity from suit.
- Whether CAA was negligent in allowing a dangerous elevation to exist.
- Whether the awards for actual, consequential, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were supported by law and evidence.
Immunity from Suit
The Court reaffirmed National Airports Corp. v. Teodoro (1952) and Malong v. Philippine National Railways (1985): entities performing proprietary, business-like functions are not immune from suit. Sections 3 and 4 of EO 365 (retained in R.A. 776 Sec. 32[24]-(25)) confer power to sue and be sued “without qualification,” encompassing tort claims. CAA’s operation and maintenance of airport facilities are proprietary, not purely governmental, functions; therefore it may be sued.
Negligence and Duty of Care
Under Article 1173, CAA owed due diligence in maintaining the terrace. The Court’s ocular inspection confirmed a defective, slanted elevation and unrepaired tile potholes, constituting a dangerous condition. CAA’s knowledge of the hazard, coupled with its statutory duty to maintain safe airport structures, established fault under Article 2176. Contributory negligence was rejected: the elevation’s continuous red-tiled surface and lack of warnings would not put a
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 51806)
Procedural History
- Private respondent Ernest E. Simke filed a quasi-delict action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VII, against the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) for injuries sustained at the Manila International Airport viewing deck.
- Trial court rendered judgment ordering CAA to pay:
• P15,589.55 for actual medical and hospital expenses
• P20,200.00 as consequential damages
• P30,000.00 as moral damages
• P40,000.00 as exemplary damages
• P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus costs - CAA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision and denied its motion for reconsideration.
- CAA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court raising questions on sovereign immunity, negligence, and the quantum of damages.
Facts of the Case
- On December 13, 1968, private respondent and companions went to Manila International Airport’s terrace to await incoming passengers.
- A four-inch elevation (“hump”) existed at the far end of the terrace; private respondent slipped over it, fell backward, and fractured his thigh bone.
- December 14, 1968: private respondent underwent a three-hour surgical operation.
- Claimed consequential damages included the cost of sending two lawyers abroad to handle business transactions and publication of wedding postponement notices for private respondent’s daughter.
- CAA, by law (R.A. 776, Sec. 32[24]), is charged with administering, operating, maintaining, and developing Manila International Airport facilities, including the viewing deck.
Issues Presented
- Whether CAA, as a government agency, is immune from suit for tort claims in the absence of explicit consent.
- Whether there was substantial evidence of negligence in the design, construction, or maintenance of the terrace elevation.
- Whether private respondent was guilty of c