Title
Government Service Insurance System vs. Pacific Airways Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 170414
Decision Date
Aug 25, 2010
Aircraft collision at Manila Airport due to PAC pilots' negligence; Supreme Court ruled PAC liable, denied damages, and ordered compensation to PAL and GSIS.
collision
negligence
liability

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170414)

Factual Background

On 2 April 1996, around 6:45 p.m., a Twin Otter aircraft of PAC arrived at the Manila International Airport from El Nido, Palawan, with Ely B. Bungabong as pilot-in-command and Michael F. Galvez as co-pilot. After the passengers disembarked, the Twin Otter was taxied along the runway to the Soriano Hangar, and then the PAC pilots initiated engine operations to proceed to the PAC Hangar at the other end of the airport. Around 7:18 p.m., Galvez contacted ground control to request clearance to taxi to taxiway delta, subject to ground control’s instruction that the controller be contacted again upon reaching the taxiway delta intersection. The Twin Otter reached taxiway delta at about 7:19 and 19 seconds, and when it reached the taxiway delta intersection, Galvez repeated the request, which was granted.

At that stage, the Twin Otter remained about 350 meters away from runway 13. Galvez then requested clearance to make a right turn to fox 1 and to cross runway 13 to proceed to fox 1 bravo. ATO granted the request. However, upon reaching runway 13, the PAC pilots did not make a full stop at the holding point to request the clearance right before crossing runway 13. Without such clearance, the Twin Otter proceeded to cross runway 13.

Simultaneously, a PAL Boeing 737, manned by Casino and Isaac, was preparing for take-off along runway 13 after being issued clearance by the ATO air traffic controller Ernesto Linog, Jr. At around 7:20 and 18 seconds, Linog, Jr. gave PAL clearance to take off. While on take-off roll, Casino caught a glimpse of the Twin Otter on the left side of the Boeing 737, about to cross runway 13. During the critical interval, Galvez noticed the Boeing 737 and told Bungabong that an aircraft was approaching from the right side. Bungabong responded by applying full power, but the PAL pilots attempted to abort the take-off by reversing the thrust. Despite the attempt, the Boeing 737 collided with the Twin Otter. The Boeing 737 dragged the Twin Otter about 100 meters. When the Twin Otter stopped, PAC pilots ran away for fear of an explosion. They later returned to the aircraft and found it totally wrecked.

After the collision, at 7:21 and 2 seconds, PAL informed the ATO control tower that it had hit another aircraft. Bungabong suffered a sprain on his shoulder and Galvez had a laceration on his left thumb. They were brought to Makati Medical Center for treatment.

Trial Court Proceedings

On 7 May 1996, PAC, Bungabong, and Galvez filed a complaint for sum of money and damages before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 112) of Pasay City against PAL, Casino, Isaac, the ATO, Rogelio Lim, Linog, Jr., and Danilo Alzola, with GSIS intervening as insurer of the Boeing 737 involved in the collision.

The trial court ruled that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of Alzola, Lim, and Linog, Jr. as traffic control and related ATO officials, while the direct cause was the negligence of Casino and Isaac, the PAL pilots. The trial court ordered PAL, its pilots, and ATO and its officials to pay damages to PAC and to the individual plaintiffs, including actual damages, exemplary damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees, together with costs.

Appellate Review and the Modification on Linog, Jr.’s Liability

All adverse parties, including PAL, Casino, Isaac, GSIS, ATO, Alzola, Lim, and Linog, Jr., appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disposition in its 28 October 2004 decision. Subsequently, upon motions for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals denied all motions except that filed by Linog, Jr. In the 15 November 2005 resolution, it modified the earlier decision by dismissing the case against Linog, Jr., while affirming the rest.

The appellate court relied on a 20 March 2003 decision of the RTC (Branch 108) in a related criminal case (Criminal Case No. 02-1979) that acquitted Linog, Jr., who had been convicted in the original trial decision together with Alzola and Lim for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with serious and slight physical injuries. Because Alzola and Lim did not appeal, their convictions became final. The Court of Appeals reasoned that once Linog, Jr. was held not negligent in the criminal case, the act from which civil liability could arise as against him did not exist, thus justifying dismissal as to him.

The Parties’ Contentions on Review

In G.R. No. 170418, PAL, Casino, and Isaac argued that the Court of Appeals should have applied the emergency rule rather than the last clear chance doctrine. They claimed that even if the PAL pilots were negligent, PAL had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its pilots. They also contended that the damages awarded lacked the supporting proof required by law, and that the Court of Appeals should have awarded PAL’s counterclaim for damages.

In G.R. No. 170414, GSIS asserted that PAC’s pilots were the ones negligent, since they violated the Rules of the Air on right of way, emphasizing that the aircraft on take-off roll and the aircraft on the right side were entitled to priority. GSIS further claimed that PAC, Bungabong, and Galvez should be held solidarily liable to pay GSIS the repair costs of the insured aircraft.

In G.R. No. 170460, ATO, Alzola, and Lim argued that PAC was a mere lessee of the Twin Otter and thus was not the real party in interest in the complaint for damages. They also maintained that ground and air traffic clearances were a joint responsibility of ATO and the pilots-in-command. They faulted Bungabong and Galvez for asking for clearance to cross an active runway while the Twin Otter was still about 350 meters away. They insisted that PAL had the right of way and that PAC’s pilots had the last clear chance to avoid the collision.

Sole Issue Framed by the Court

The Court treated the sole issue as one of who among the parties was liable for negligence under the circumstances.

Legal Framework: Rules of the Air and Taking Off

The Court held that liability required reference to the applicable rules governing aircraft traffic management. It noted that the Rules of the Air of the ATO apply to all aircrafts registered in the Philippines. Since both the Boeing 737 and the Twin Otter were registered in the Philippines, both were subject to those Rules of the Air.

In case of danger of collision between two aircrafts taxiing on the maneuvering area, the Rules of the Air state that the aircraft on the right has priority, and the one with the other on its right gives way. The Court, however, clarified that this case did not involve both aircraft taxiing. At the time of impact, only the Twin Otter was taxiing, while the Boeing 737 was already on take-off roll. The Rules of the Air further provide that an aircraft taxiing on the maneuvering area shall give way to aircraft taking off or about to take off. The Court thus concluded that PAL’s aircraft had the right of way not merely due to relative position, but more significantly because it was “taking off or about to take off.”

PAC Pilots’ Gross Negligence as the Immediate and Proximate Cause

The Court found that by disregarding PAL’s right of way and by failing to ensure that runway crossing was safe, PAC’s pilots were grossly negligent. The Court described gross negligence as the want of even slight care, amounting to a willful and intentional disregard or conscious indifference to consequences insofar as others may be affected.

The Court found it difficult to believe that PAC’s pilots did not see the Boeing 737 when they looked left and right before approaching the runway. It noted that it was a clear evening and that the Boeing 737, only about 200 meters away, had inboard lights, outboard lights, taxi lights, and logo lights on before and during actual take-off roll. The Court reasoned that the only plausible explanation for not seeing the Boeing 737 was that PAC’s pilots did not really look to the left and to the right before crossing the active runway.

The Court further emphasized that ATO’s observation showed PAC’s pilots prematurely requested clearance to cross the active runway while still 350 meters away. It held that ATO would have been in a position to determine if an aircraft was on take-off roll had PAC’s pilots instead made a full stop at the holding point to request updated clearance right before crossing. The collision would not have occurred if PAC had complied.

ATO Controllers’ Clearance Role and Contributory Negligence

The Court also reviewed the Rules of Air Control, which govern airplane traffic management and clearance. It underscored provisions showing that airplane traffic management and clearance were not the sole responsibility of ATO controllers. The pilot-in-command was responsible for operating the aircraft in accordance with the Rules of the Air, except where departure was absolutely necessary in the interests of safety. The pilot-in-command had final authority over the disposition of the aircraft. The Rules of Air Control further provided that clearances issued by controllers relate to traffic and aerodrome conditions only and do not relieve a pilot of any responsibility for possible violation of applicable rules. The Court thus rejected any attempt to shift blame to ATO based solely on the issuance of clearances.

Even if ATO gave clearance, the Court held that the clearance to cross runway 13—premature as it was—was not an absolute license for PAC’s pilots to recklessly maneuver across an active runway. PAC’s pilots should have stopped at the holding point and asked for updated clearance right before crossing. Their argument that the prematurity of the request was immaterial so long as the clearance was granted reflected poor judgment and gross negligence.

As to the controllers, the Court stated that evidence showed the air traffic controller properly issued clearance to take off for PAL. It cited the RTC’s criminal case ruling that Linog, Jr. was not negligent

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms