Abeto Vs Philippine Air Lines,Inc. July 30, 1982 Relova, J.

: ENTITIES INVOLVED: PAL carrier JUDGE QURICO ABATO passenger/deceased CONDRADA VDA. DE ABETO - plaintiff FACTS:

The plane had undergone pre-flight checks, thorough checks, terminating checks and after-maintenance checks. The deviation from its prescribed route was due to bad weather condition.

ISSUE:

1. Judge Quirico Abato boarded the Philippine Airline' PIC133 plane at the Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo City for Manila

Is Philippine Airlines liable for violation of its contract of carriage? RULING: Yes The Civic Code, as the law governing the liability of common carriers, is clear and explicit: Art. 1773 - binds common carriers from the nature of their business and by reason of public policy to observe extraordinary in vigilance for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case. Art. 1755 - a common carrier is required to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of every cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. Art. 1756 - in case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless proved that they observed extra ordinary diligence. Art. 1757 - the responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise, PAL is liable for the death of Judge Abeto:

2. The plane did not reach its destination and there was
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. news that the plane went missing. After 3 weeks, it was ascertained that the plane crashed at Mt. Baco, Province of Mindoro. All the passengers have been killed including Judge Quirico Abeto Condrada Vda. de Abeto , the wife of the deceased, was appointed administratrix of the estate of Judge Abeto. Condrada, together with her children filed a complaint for damages against Philippine Airlines for the death of Judge Abeto. Philippine Airlines, on the other hand, contends that the plane crash was das due to a fortuitous event. The trial court ruled in favor of Abeto and her children.

DEFENSES: Plane Crash was beyond the control of the pilot. The plane was airworthy for the purpose of conveying passengers across the country as shown by the certificate of airworthiness issued by the Civil Aeronautics Administration. There was navigational error but no negligence or malfeasance on the part of the pilot.

The plane did not take the designated route which was Iloilo-Romblon-Manila or "Amber I", if it had taken this route, then the crash would have not happened. This was even supported by the statements of Ramon Peroza (Administrative assistant of Philippine Air Lines Inc.)and Cesar Mijares (Assistant Director of the Civil Aeronautics Administration) The weather during that time was clear and the pilot was supposed to cross airway "Amber I"' instead he made a straight flight to Manila in violation of air traffic rules. Since theres no satisfactory explanation by PAL with regard to the accident, then the presumption is it is at fault.