G.R. No. 55300 - Gacal vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 55300)

Petitioner

Franklin and Corazon Gacal sued PAL for actual damages (hospital and medical expenses), loss of personal belongings, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages alleging gross, wanton and inexcusable negligence by PAL in failing to detect and prevent the hijacking (insufficient frisking and absence of metal detectors).

Respondent

Philippine Air Lines defended on the ground that it exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person and that airport security, including passenger frisking and baggage inspection, was exclusively performed by military authorities pursuant to a military takeover of airport security during Martial Law. PAL therefore argued the hijacking and resulting harms constituted force majeure or fortuitous event and were beyond its control.

Key Dates

Hijacking and related events: May 21–23, 1976. Trial court decision dismissing consolidated cases: August 26, 1980. Notice of appeal filed: September 12, 1980. Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court: October 20, 1980. Supreme Court decision: March 15, 1990. As the decision date is 1990, the applicable constitutional framework for reasoning is the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Applicable Law

Primary legal sources applied: Article 1733 of the Civil Code (common carriers’ obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence for passengers and goods), Article 1174 of the Civil Code (non-liability for events which could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable — force majeure/caso fortuito), and relevant jurisprudence cited by the Court concerning the presumption of carrier negligence, the duty to overcome that presumption by showing extraordinary diligence, and the elements required to establish force majeure.

Facts Found by the Trial Court

Six MNLF members boarded the PAL flight armed with grenades and pistols. Ten minutes after takeoff they announced the hijacking and demanded flight to Libya; after negotiations they ordered the plane to land at Zamboanga for refueling. They demanded a DC aircraft, ransom and arms. For a prolonged period passengers were deprived of adequate food and water; sporadic, minimal food and water were given only on May 23. Relatives of hijackers were later allowed aboard; after their disembarkation military armored cars engaged the hijackers, precipitating an armed confrontation that ended with ten passengers and three hijackers dead, three hijackers captured, and survivors wounded or otherwise harmed. Mrs. Gacal was injured while jumping from the plane; Elma de Guzman died. Trial court dismissed the damage suits, attributing the losses to force majeure.

Procedural History

The trial court dismissed the consolidated civil cases for damages on August 26, 1980. Petitioners filed timely notice of appeal and a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took up the case; both parties filed briefs, with petitioners failing to file a reply brief. The dispositive question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the hijacking and attendant consequences constituted a caso fortuito or force majeure that would absolve PAL, a common carrier, from liability.

Issue Presented

Whether the hijacking and ensuing military engagement that caused death, injury and loss of property to passengers constituted a force majeure/caso fortuito making PAL not liable despite the general duty of common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence.

Legal Standard on Common Carriers and Force Majeure

Common carriers are bound by the contract of carriage to carry passengers safely “as far as human care and foresight can provide” and must exercise extraordinary diligence (Article 1733). There is a presumption of fault or negligence when a passenger dies or is injured or when goods are lost, which the carrier must overcome by proving the exercise of extraordinary diligence or that the incident resulted from a fortuitous event. Force majeure/caso fortuito under Article 1174 requires concurrence of the following elements: (a) the cause of the breach is independent of human will; (b) the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event renders performance impossible in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor is free from participation in or aggravation of the injury.

Application of Law to the Facts

The Court accepted that the hijacking was independent of PAL’s will and that the hijackers had no connection with the airline. The Court recognized that under normal circumstances PAL might have foreseen and perhaps prevented such an attack through more thorough frisking and use of metal detectors. However, the pivotal factual circumstance was the military takeover of airport sec

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 55300)

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of South Cotabato, Branch I, promulgated August 26, 1980, which dismissed three consolidated civil cases for damages: Civil Case Nos. 1701, 1773 and 1797 (Rollo, p. 35).
Petitioners are Franklin G. Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal (the latter assisted by her husband Franklin G. Gacal), plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1701. Other plaintiffs in the consolidated actions included Bonifacio S. Anislag and Mansueta L. Anislag, and the late Elma de Guzman.
Respondents are Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) and the Honorable Pedro Samson C. Animas in his capacity as presiding judge of the CFI of South Cotabato, Branch I.
The relief sought by petitioners included damages for injuries, death, loss of personal belongings, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages as alleged in the complaint in Civil Case No. 1701 (Record, pp. 4–6).

Procedural History

The trial court dismissed the consolidated complaints on August 26, 1980, holding that damages were attributable to force majeure.
On September 12, 1980 the spouses Franklin G. Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal filed a notice of appeal with the lower court on pure questions of law (Rollo, p. 55).
The petition for review on certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on October 20, 1980 (Rollo, p. 30).
The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 147); both parties filed briefs, but petitioners failed to file a reply brief, noted in the Court’s resolution dated May 3, 1982 (Rollo, p. 183).
Final disposition by the Supreme Court: petition dismissed for lack of merit; decision of the CFI affirmed. Decision authored by Justice Paras; concurred in by Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ. Date of the Supreme Court decision: March 15, 1990 (as reflected at head of source).

Facts Found by the Trial Court (as reported)

On May 21, 1976, plaintiffs Franklin G. Gacal and Corazon M. Gacal, Bonifacio S. Anislag and his wife Mansueta L. Anislag, and Elma de Guzman were passengers aboard PAL BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport bound for Manila.
Unbeknownst to the passengers, six (6) co-passengers from Marawi City who were members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)—identified as Macalinog, Taurac Pendatum known as Commander Zapata, Nasser Omar, Liling Pusuan Radia, Dimantong Dimarosing and Mike Randa—were aboard; three (3) of them were armed with grenades, two (2) with .45 caliber pistols, and one with a .22 caliber pistol.
Ten minutes after takeoff at about 2:30 p.m., the hijackers announced the hijacking and directed the pilot to fly to Libya.
The pilot explained the plane’s fuel limitations and unfitness for international flights; the hijackers then directed the pilot to fly to Sabah, and later relented and ordered landing at Zamboanga Airport for refueling.
The aircraft landed at Zamboanga Airport at 3:00 p.m. on May 21, 1976.
When the plane began to taxi, two armored cars of the military met the aircraft with machine guns pointed at the plane; the aircraft stopped.
The rebels, through Commander Zapata, demanded a DC-aircraft to take them to Libya with the President of PAL as hostage, $375,000, and six (6) armalites; they threatened to blow up the plane if demands were not met by the government and PAL.
Passengers were not served food or water until May 23 at about 1:00 p.m., when they were served one-quarter slice of a sandwich and one-tenth cup of PAL water.
Relatives of the hijackers were allowed to board the plane; immediately after they disembarked, an armored car bumped the stairs, precipitating a battle between the military and the hijackers.
The ensuing battle led to liberation of surviving crew and passengers; ten (10) passengers and three (3) hijackers died on the spot; three (3) hijackers were captured.
Injuries and damages to plaintiffs: Franklin G. Gacal unhurt; Corazon M. Gacal suffered injuries after jumping from the plane when it was peppered with bullets and after two hand grenades exploded inside the plane; she was hospitalized at General Santos Doctors Hospital for two (2) days, incurring P245.60 in hospital and medical expenses.
Bonifacio S. Anislag escaped unhurt; Mansueta L. Anislag suffered a fracture of the radial bone of her left elbow, was hospitalized and operated upon at San Pedro Hospital and Davao Regional Hospital, spending P4,500.00.
Elma de Guzman died as a result of the battle.
Specific claims in Civil Case No. 1701 included actual damages of P245.60 (hospital/medical for Mrs. Gacal), P8,995.00 for lost personal belongings, P50,000.00 each for moral damages, and P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees, in addition to a prayer for exemplary damages (Record, pp. 4–6, Civil Case No. 1701). (Civil Case Nos. 1773 and 1797 were consolidated; their specific contents in the source are indicated as “xxx xxx xxx.”)

Petitioners’ Principal Contentions

Petitioners alleged gross, wanton, and inexcusable negligence of PAL personnel in failing to adequately frisk passengers and discover hidden weapons of the six hijackers.
Petitioners asserted that despite prevalence of skyjacking, PAL did not use a metal detector, which petitioners claimed to be the most effective means to discover potential skyjackers among passengers (Rollo, pp. 6–7).

Respondent Airline’s Principal Contentions

PAL averred that it exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person with due regard to all circumstances in performing its obligation to safely transport passengers.
PAL asserted that security checks, measures and surveillance precautions — including inspection of baggage and frisking of passengers at Davao Airport — were performed solely by military personnel,