View full case

CHINA AIR LINES v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves consolidated petitions seeking the review of the decision of the respondent court in CA-G.R. No. 53023-R. The plaintiff, Jose E. Pagsibigan, purchased a plane ticket for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from Transaire Travel Agency. The agency contacted the Manila Hotel branch of Philippine Air Lines (PAL), which was a sales and ticketing agent of defendant China Air Lines (CAL) at that time. PAL issued a CAL ticket to the plaintiff. However, when the plaintiff arrived at the airport on June 10, 1968, one hour before the scheduled time of the flight, he was informed that the plane had already left earlier that day. PAL arranged for the plaintiff to take their flight to Taipei the following day. The plaintiff demanded moral damages from PAL for the alleged negligence in stating the wrong time of departure on his ticket. He subsequently filed a complaint against PAL and CAL for moral damages and attorney's fees. The court held PAL and its ticketing clerk liable for the erroneous entry on the ticket, while CAL disclaimed liability. The court ruled that the plaintiff had no reason to claim moral damages but might be entitled to recover exemplary damages.

The plaintiff, Jose Pagsibigan, filed a complaint against PAL, CAL, and Roberto Espiritu, seeking damages for the erroneous entry of the time of departure on his plane ticket, which caused him to miss his flight. The trial court held PAL and Espiritu liable for damages but dismissed the complaint against CAL. The trial court also denied Pagsibigan's claim for moral damages but awarded exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs to Pagsibigan. All the parties, except CAL, appealed the decision to the respondent court. The respondent court upheld the trial court's ruling denying Pagsibigan's claim for moral damages and ruled out the claim for exemplary damages. However, it awarded nominal damages to Pagsibigan for the vindication of a legal wrong committed against him. The respondent court held PAL and Espiritu liable for the damage caused by the erroneous entry on the ticket but found CAL not liable for Espiritu's act. Nonetheless, the court held that PAL's liability could be passed on to CAL, and CAL could be held jointly and severally liable with PAL and Espiritu. CAL did not appeal the decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Can CAL be held liable for the negligence of its sub-agent PAL and its representative Roberto Espiritu?

  2. Can CAL be released from liability if it proves that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees?

  3. Is PAL solely liable to the respondent Pagsibigan?

  4. Can respondent Pagsibigan recover damages from both CAL and PAL for a single wrong?

  5. Whether or not the action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage.

  6. Whether or not CAL can be held liable on a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

  7. Whether or not Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) and Roberto Espiritu are liable for the damages caused by the negligence of PAL's employee.

  8. Whether or not nominal damages should be awarded to the offended party.

RULING:

  1. Yes, CAL can be held liable for the negligence of its sub-agent PAL and its representative Roberto Espiritu.

  2. No, CAL cannot be released from liability even if it proves that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

  3. No, CAL and PAL are jointly and solidarily liable to the respondent Pagsibigan.

  4. No, respondent Pagsibigan cannot recover damages from both CAL and PAL for a single wrong.

  5. No, the action against CAL is not based on breach of contract of carriage. The intention of the plaintiff was to maintain an action based on breach of contract against CAL, but he instead claimed it was based on a breach of contract of carriage. However, the court cannot permit the plaintiff to change his theory at this stage as it would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no more opportunity to present further evidence.

  6. No, there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. The court absolved CAL of any liability for fault or negligence, and it was concluded that CAL did not contribute to the negligence committed by the other defendants. CAL cannot be held liable for the negligence of PAL and its employee.

  7. PAL and Roberto Espiritu are declared jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by PAL's employee. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, regardless of whether or not the employer is engaged in any business or industry.

  8. Nominal damages should be awarded to the offended party. While the immediate rectification of the wrong committed by promptly booking the offended party for the next morning's flight was considered, the amount of damages awarded was reduced to an amount equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A principal can be held liable for the tortious acts of its sub-agent or representative.

  • The liability of an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is primary and direct.

  • Liability for damages can be joint and solidary if multiple parties are responsible for the negligence or wrong committed.

  • Double recovery is prohibited under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.

  • In cases of breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove fault or negligence of the common carrier. All he has to prove is the existence of the contract and its non-performance by the carrier.

  • To hold a party liable on a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, there must be proof of fault or negligence on the part of the defendant.

  • An employer may be vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, but this presumption can be rebutted by showing that the employer exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of the employee.

  • An agent who acts as such is not personally liable to third persons, but there are exceptions, such as when the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee.

  • Employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code)

  • Nominal damages may be awarded to vindicate a legal wrong, but the amount should be commensurate to the injury sustained.