TRANSPORTATION LAW DIGESTS (2014 2015)

TAN
G.R. No. L-50076
1990

DATE: September 14,

TITLE: NORBERTO QUISUMBING, SR., and GUNTHER

LOEFFLER vs. CA
CASE: Case is super short but action-packed. It is recitready in itself.

Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. and Gunther Leoffler were

passengers of PAL in a flight bound from Cebu to
Manila.
After the plane took off, an NBI agent Villarin who
was aboard the plane noticed that a certain Zaldy
who is a suspect in the killing of a Judge was also
on board.
o This Zaldy was seated near the cockpit using
an alias, Cardente.
Villarin scribbled a note addressed to the pilot
requesting that the latter contact NBI Manila to ask
for back-up in apprehending Zaldy when they reach
manila.
o The captain went out of the cockpit to tell
Villarin that he cant send the message
because all ground aircraft stations would
hear it.
Zaldy and his companions started walking around
acting suspicious and all.
Soon thereafter an exchange of gunshots ensued
between Villarin and Zaldy & co.
o Zaldy announced that it was a hold-up and
ordered the pilot not to send SOS.

They divested the passengers of their

belongings.
Quisumbing was divested of jewelries and cash in
the total amount of 18k. He also suffered shock
because a gun had been pointed at him. Gunther
was divested of a wrist watch, cash and wallet.
Upon landing at the MIA, Zaldy and his 3
companions escaped.
The petitioners filed this case on the ground that
the loss was a result of PALs breach of contractual
obligation to carry them and their belongings with
extraordinary diligence.
CFI ruled in PALs favor, ruling that PAL was not
negligent and that the plaintiffs failure to notify
PAL of the baggage precluded the carriers liability.
CA affirmed
o

BACKGROUND
Facts:

ATTY. NORIANNE

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1. W/N PAL is liable
RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
NO. <2 paragraphs lang ang ratio>
I. PAL exercised extraordinary diligence.

The acts of the airline and its crew cannot be

faulted as negligence. The hijackers had already
shown their willingness to kill. One passenger was
in fact killed and another survived gunshot wounds.
The lives of the rest of the passengers and crew
were more important than their properties.
Cooperation with the hijackers until they released
their hostages at the runway end near the South
Superhighway was dictated by the circumstances

Castelo Cruz Evardone Gana Gutierrez Mercado Ngo Tan Tecson Valdez

TRANSPORTATION LAW DIGESTS (2014 2015)

TAN

PAL's "failure to take certain steps that a passenger

in hindsight believes should have been taken is not
the negligence or misconduct which mingles with
force majeure as an active and cooperative cause."

ATTY. NORIANNE
II. The use of firearms and irresistible force in the
hijacking constitutes force majeure. The particular
acts singled out by the petitioners as supposedly
demonstrative of negligence were, in the light of the
circumstances of the case, not in truth negligent acts
"sufficient to overcome the force majeure nature of the
armed robbery."

Castelo Cruz Evardone Gana Gutierrez Mercado Ngo Tan Tecson Valdez