Case Summary (G.R. No. 55300)
Facts of the Hijacking Incident
Six members of the Moro National Liberation Front, armed with grenades and pistols, hijacked PAL flight RP-C1161 ten minutes after takeoff. They compelled the pilot to divert first toward Libya, then Sabah, and finally to Zamboanga for refueling. Upon landing, military armored cars surrounded the aircraft. The hijackers demanded money, arms, and the airline president as hostage. Passengers received only minimal food and drink between May 21 and May 23. When relatives of the hijackers left the plane, a military assault ensued. Ten passengers and three hijackers were killed; three hijackers were captured. Mrs. Gacal sustained injuries from gunfire and grenade explosions; she incurred hospital expenses of ₱245.60. Mrs. Anislag suffered an elbow fracture and spent ₱4,500 on treatment. Elma de Guzman died.
Claims and Judicial Proceedings
Petitioners filed three consolidated actions for damages (Civil Cases Nos. 1701, 1773, 1797), seeking:
- Actual expenses (medical and lost personal belongings)
- Moral damages (₱50,000 each)
- Exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
The CFI dismissed the complaints on August 26, 1980, ruling the hijacking a force majeure. Petitioners appealed on pure questions of law and filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on October 20, 1980.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners
- PAL was grossly negligent for inadequate passenger frisking and baggage inspection
- Failure to use metal detectors breached statutory duty (R.A. No. 6235)
Respondent Airline
- Exercised utmost diligence; security checks were exclusively performed by military authorities under Martial Law
- Hijacking and negotiations were government matters; incident was an unforeseeable, irresistible force
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
1987 Constitution (governing decision)
Civil Code:
- Art. 1733 – common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances
- Art. 1174 – no liability for events that could not be foreseen or, though foreseen, were inevitable (force majeure or caso fortuito)
Jurisprudence: - Carrier presumed negligent for passenger injury or loss (e.g., PAL v. NLRC, 124 SCRA 583)
- To invoke force majeure, event must be independent of carrier’s will, unforeseeable or unavoidable, render performance impossible, and carrier must bear no fault (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657)
Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Independence of the hijacking from PAL’s operations was established.
- Although skyjacking was a foreseeable ri
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 55300)
Facts
- May 21, 1976: Six armed MNLF members hijacked PAL BAC 1-11 Flight RP-C1161, carrying grenades and pistols.
- Hijackers initially demanded flight to Libya; pilot explained fuel limitations, so they redirected to Sabah, then ordered refueling at Zamboanga.
- At Zamboanga Airport, military armored cars confronted the plane; hijackers demanded a DC-aircraft, the PAL President as hostage, US$375,000, and six Armalites, threatening to destroy the aircraft.
- Passengers subsisted on minimal rations (¼ slice of sandwich, 1/10 cup of water) until May 23; hijackers’ relatives briefly boarded.
- A military armored car striking the stairs triggered a firefight: ten passengers (including Elma de Guzman) and three hijackers died on the spot; three hijackers were captured.
- Injuries and expenses:
• Mrs. Corazon M. Gacal suffered wounds from jumping and explosions, hospitalized two days, P245.60 in expenses.
• Mrs. Mansueta L. Anislag sustained a fractured left radial bone, operated on, P4,500.00 in expenses.
• Mr. Franklin G. Gacal and Mr. Bonifacio S. Anislag remained unhurt.
Procedural History
- Plaintiffs filed three consolidated civil suits for damages (CFI South Cotabato, Branch I: Civil Cases 1701, 1773, 1797).
- August 26, 1980: Trial court dismissed complaints, citing force majeure.
- September 12, 1980: The Gacals appealed on pure questions of law.
- October 20, 1980: Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court; petition given due course.
- Both parties filed briefs; petitioners did not file a reply brief.
Determinative Issue
- Does an act of hijacking d