Case Name: CHINA AIRLINES, LTD v.

CA, PAGSIBIGAN, PHILIPPINE By: Patricia Arbolado

AIRLINES, INC. and ESPIRITU Topic: Presumptions of Negligence:
GR No. 45985 and GR No. 46036 Respondent Superior
Date: 18 May 1990
FACTS
1. PAGSIBIGAN, VP and General Manager of Rentokil (Phils.) Inc., purchased a plane ticket from the Transaire Travel
Agency for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight. Said agency contacted Philippine Airlines (PAL)s Manila Hotel branch.
PAL was a sales and ticketing agent of China Air Lines (CAL). On 6 June 1968, PAL, through its ticketing clerk ESPIRITU,
cut and issued him CAL Ticket No. 017991. According to the plane ticket, Pagsibigan was booked on CAL CI Flight No. 812
to depart from Manila to Taipei on 10 June 1968 at 5:20pm.

2. On 10 June 1968, when PAGSIBIGAN arrived at the airport 1 hour before his scheduled flight to check in, he was informed
that the plane he was supposed to take for Taipei had left at 10:20am of that day. PAL made arrangements for Pagsibigan to
take PALs flight to Taipei on 11 June 1968. PAGSIBIGAN took said flight and arirved in Taipei around noontime.

3. PAGSIBIGAN filed a complaint against PAL and CAL and prayed for moral damages (P125,000) arising from the gross
negligence of ESPIRITU in indicating an incorrect time on his ticket. He claimed that the purpose of his trip to Taipei was to
confer with Peng Siong Lim, president of Union Taiwan Chemical Corporation, scheduled at 9:00am on 11 June 1968. He
suffered from besmirched reputation, embarrassment, mental anguish, wounded feelings and sleepless nights from his failure to
take the plane on 10 June.

4. According to PAL, CAL had not informed or provided them of the revised schedule of its flight. Moreover, PAL and
Espiritu, disclaim any liability on the theory that the former is merely an agent of CAL and that the suit should have been
directed against CAL alone.

5. CAL disclaims liability. It claims that it had revised its schedule of flights since 1 April 1968, which PAL was informed. In
fact, PALs Manila Hotel branch office had been issuing and selling tickets based on the revised time schedule before June 10,
1968.

ISSUE
1) Who is liable to Pagsibigan? PAL and Espiritu.
2) W/N PAL could be held liable by the negligence of Espiritu, its employee. YES.
HELD
1) As to CAL There is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. Espiritu is solely and exclusively
responsible for the error. He is not an employee or agent of CAL, and CAL did not contribute to the negligence committed by
PAL and Espiritu.
There is no question that the contractual relation between both CAL and PAL is one of agency. However, in an action premised
on the employees negligence, what is sought to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PAL as an employer under
said Article 2180.

As to PAL PAL is only an agent of CAL. As a general rule, an agent who duly acts as such is not personally liable to third
persons. However, the exception is, as in this case, where the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by
his employee. Hence, PAL is liable.

As to ESPIRITU - As an employee of PAL, the nature of his functions requires him to observe that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. He committed a clear neglect of duty. Hence, for his negligence, he is
primarily liable to Pagsibigan under Art. 2176.

2) When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the employer either in a) the selection of the employee or in the b) supervision over him after such
selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it has exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
In this case, however, PAL failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of its employee.
Hence, PAL is liable under Art. 2180.