Scribd
Upload
92 views1 page

2davila VS Pal

1) A Philippine Airlines (PAL) plane crashed shortly after takeoff from Iloilo, killing all 33 passengers and crew. 2) The parents of one of the deceased passengers, Pedro Davila Jr., sued PAL for damages. 3) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for death, lost income, moral damages, and other expenses, finding that PAL was liable as the carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence required by law to ensure passenger safety.

Uploaded by

crisanto perez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views1 page

2davila VS Pal

1) A Philippine Airlines (PAL) plane crashed shortly after takeoff from Iloilo, killing all 33 passengers and crew. 2) The parents of one of the deceased passengers, Pedro Davila Jr., sued PAL for damages. 3) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for death, lost income, moral damages, and other expenses, finding that PAL was liable as the carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence required by law to ensure passenger safety.

Uploaded by

crisanto perez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DAVILA VS.

PAL (1973)
G.R. No. L-28512, February 28, 1973

FACTS
Just 1hr and 15min after its take-off from Iloilo, PAL’s Manila-bound plane crashed at Mt. Baco, Mindoro and took the lives of all 33
passengers and crew. A massive search was undertaken once the flight’s delayed arrival was realized. The plane was a DC-3 type of
aircraft which was manufactured in 1942 and acquired by PAL in 1948. Despite its age, it had been certified as airworthy by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration. The plane had flown almost 18,000 hrs at the time of the crash.
The plaintiffs Pedro Davila and Preciosa Tiro are the parents of Pedro Davila, Jr. who was one of the passengers of the ill-fated flight.
They received a letter of condolence from Andres Soriano, PAL president, informing them of their son’s death. Until then, they had
only been receiving second-hand information from conflicting newspaper reports about what had happened to their son. Their son’s
body was eventually recovered and taken back to Iloilo.
‣ An action for damages was filed with the CFI of Iloilo were it ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. It awarded the following
1. For the death of Pedro T. Davila, Jr. the amount of P6,000.00;
2. For the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased at the rate of P12,000.00 per annum for five (5) years in the amount of Sixty
Thousand Pesos. (P60,000.00);
3. For moral damages in favor of the plaintiffs Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00);
4. For exemplary damages in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00);
5. For actual damages the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) broken down to as follows: A rolex watch valued at
P600.00; a pistol worth P300.00; burial expenses P600.00; for the lot and the mausoleum P3,500.00;
6. For Attorney's fees the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or a total amount of One Hundred and One Thousand Pesos
(P101,000.00)

ISSUE
1. WON PAL is liable for violation of its contract of carriage-

RULING

YES
The provisions of the Civil Code on this substantive question of liability are clear and explicit.
Article 1733 binds common carriers, "from the nature of their business and by reasons of public policy, to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance ... for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the
circumstances of each case."
Article 1755 establishes the standard of care required of a common carrier, which is, "to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances."
Article 1756 fixes the burden of proof by providing that "in case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755."
Lastly, Article 1757 states that "the responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers ... cannot be dispensed with or
lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise."
As found by the Court, the pilot failed to follow the prescribed route (denominated as “Amber I”) for his flight, violating aircraft
traffic rules, to which the accident may be directly attributable. While there may have been a suggestion that the aircraft was drifted
westward by the cross-winds then blowing in the region, PAL was not able to justify why, if such was the case, the pilot failed to
make the necessary correction in his flight.
Thus, having failed to satisfactorily explain as to how and why the accident occurred, the conclusion is that PAL was at fault under
ART 1756 of the Civil Code.

You might also like