Title
Vda. de Abeto vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-28692
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1982
Judge Abeto's heirs sued PAL for negligence after his fatal plane crash. Court ruled PAL liable due to pilot's route deviation, affirming damages for loss, moral harm, and burial costs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28692)

Factual Background

On the day of the incident, Judge Abeto checked in and boarded the flight scheduled to take approximately two hours. Unfortunately, the aircraft did not reach its destination, and news of its disappearance emerged the following day. After three weeks, the wreckage was found on Mt. Baco in Mindoro, with all passengers presumed dead. Evidence retrieved from the crash site included personal effects belonging to Judge Abeto, indicating his presence on the ill-fated flight.

Plaintiff's Claims

The plaintiffs, namely the heirs of Judge Abeto, sought damages due to the loss of their loved one. They argued that PAL failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required by law for the safety of its passengers. The trial court awarded damages for wrongful death, loss of earning capacity, moral suffering, actual damages, and attorney’s fees, totaling P57,800.00. This included specific compensations for burial expenses and the emotional distress experienced by the family.

Defendant's Defense

In response, PAL contested the trial court's findings, claiming the crash was a result of fortuitous circumstances beyond the pilot's control, such as adverse weather conditions and navigational errors. PAL argued that it had fulfilled its duty by ensuring that the aircraft was airworthy and that various pre-flight checks were conducted.

Applicable Law

The relevant stipulations from the Civil Code concerning the responsibilities of common carriers were cited, particularly Articles 1733, 1755, 1756, and 1757. Article 1733 mandates common carriers to exercise extraordinary diligence for passenger safety, while Article 1756 establishes a presumption of fault in cases of injury or death to passengers unless the carrier can demonstrate the exercise of extraordinary diligence.

Findings of the Trial Court

The trial court concluded that the pilot of the plane failed to adhere to standard regulations by not following the prescribed flight route, thereby demonstrating negligence. It was determined that the consequences of this negligence were directly tied to the tragic outcome of the flight, leading to the legal presumption of fault against PAL.

Appellate Court's Ruling

On appeal, the court scrutinized the trial court's findings, noting that the circumstances pre

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.