FRANKLIN G. GACAL and CORAZON M.
GACAL, the latter assisted by her husband,
FRANKLIN G. GACAL, petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., and THE HONORABLE PEDRO SAMSON C.
ANIMAS, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF SOUTH COTABATO, BRANCH I, respondents.
G.R. No. L-55300
March 15, 1990
Topic: Presumption of Negligence
Facts:
Sometime in May 1976, petitioner Franklin Gacal and his wife, Corazon Gacal, were
passengers of an aircraft owned by respondent Philippine Air Lines (PAL) at Davao Airport for a
flight to Manila. Unknown to them, some of their co-passengers were members of the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF), six of them were armed with grenades and pistols. After the
plane’s take-off, the six members of the MNLF announced the hijacking of the aircraft and
directed its pilot to fly to Libya. The pilot explained the inherent fuel limitations of the plane and
that they are not rated for international flights. The hijackers directed the pilot to fly to Sabah
instead. With the same explanation, the hijackers relented and directed the aircraft to land at
Zamboanga Airport for refueling.
When the aircraft landed in Zamboanga Airport, it was met by two armored cars of the
military with machine guns pointed at the plane. The rebels, through its Commander, demanded
that an aircraft take them to Libya with the President of PAL as hostage and that they be given
$375,000 and six (6) armalites, otherwise they will blow up the plane if their demands will not
be met by the government and PAL. The battle between the military and the hijackers
commenced which led ultimately to the liberation of the surviving crew and the passengers, 10
passengers and 3 hijackers were dead on the spot and 3 hijackers were captured. Franklin did not
suffer any injury while his wife, Corazon, suffered injuries in the course of her jumping out of
the plane.
An action of damages was then filed by petitioners against respondent airline. The trial
court dismissed the complaint finding that all the damages sustained in the premises were
attributed to force majeure. Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioners alleged that the main cause of the unfortunate incident is the gross, wanton
and inexcusable negligence of respondent airline’s personnel in their failure to frisk the
passengers adequately in order to discover hidden weapons in the bodies of the six hijackers.
They claimed that despite the prevalence of skyjacking, PAL did not use a metal detector which
is the most effective means of discovering potential skyjackers among the passengers. On the
other hand, PAL averred that in the performance of its obligation to safely transport passengers
as far as human care and foresight can provide, it has exercised the utmost diligence of a very
cautious person with due regard to all circumstances, but the security checks and measures and
surveillance precautions in all flights, including the inspection of baggages and cargo and
frisking of passengers at the Davao Airport, were performed and rendered solely by military
personnel who under appropriate authority had assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the same in
all airports in the Philippines.
Issue:
Whether or not hijacking during martial law is a caso fortuito or force majeure which
would exempt an aircraft from payment of damages to its passengers.
Ruling:
Under the Civil Code, common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence
in their vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according
to all the circumstances of each case. They are presumed at fault or to have acted negligently
whenever a passenger dies or is injured or for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in
cases other than those enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code. It is the duty of a common
carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence and it must be shown that the carrier had
observed the required extraordinary diligence of a very cautious person as far as human care and
foresight can provide or that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event.
Caso fortuito or force majeure are extraordinary events which could not be foreseen or
avoided, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable. In order to constitute a caso fortuito or force
majeure that would exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that the following elements
must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the human
will (the will of the debtor or the obligor); (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or
unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation
in or aggravation of the injury.
Applying the above guidelines to the case at bar, the failure to transport petitioners safely
from Davao to Manila was due to the skyjacking incident staged by six passengers of the same
plane, all members of the MNLF, without any connection with private respondent, hence,
independent of the will of either the PAL or of its passengers. Under normal circumstances,
PAL might have foreseen the skyjacking incident which could have been avoided had there been
a more thorough frisking of passengers and inspection of baggages. But the incident in question
occurred during Martial Law where there was a military take-over of airport security including
the frisking of passengers and the inspection of their luggage. In fact, military take-over was
specifically announced by the Commanding General of the Philippine Air Force shortly
before the hijacking incident through Letter of Instruction No. 399 issued on April 28, 1976.
These events rendered it impossible for PAL to perform its obligations in a normal manner
and obviously it cannot be faulted with negligence in the performance of duty taken over by the
Armed Forces of the Philippines to the exclusion of the former. Finally, there is no dispute that
the fourth element has also been satisfied. Consequently, the existence of force majeure has been
established exempting respondent PAL from the payment of damages to its passengers who
suffered death or injuries in their persons and for loss of their baggages.
