Fil-Asia Air Flight 9 I 6 was on a scheduled passenger flight from Manila when it crashed as it landed at the Cagayan de Oro airport; the pilot miscalculated the plane’s approach and undershot the runway. Of the I 50 people on board, ten (10) passengers died at the crash scene.
Of the ten who died, one was a passenger who managed to leave the plane but was run over by an ambulance coming to the rescue. Another was an airline employee who hitched a free ride to Cagayan de Oro and who was not in the passenger manifest.
It appears from the Civil Aeronautics Authority investigation that the co-pilot who had control of the plane’s landing had less than the required flying and landing time experience, and should not have been in control of the plane at the time. He was allowed to fly as a co-pilot because of the scarcity of pilots – Philippine pilots have been recruited by foreign airlines under vastly improved flying terms and wages so that newer and less trained pilots are being locally deployed. The main pilot, on the other hand, had a very high level of blood alcohol at the time of the crash.
You are part of the team that the victims hired to handle the case for them as a group. In your case conference, the following questions came up:
(A) Explain the causes of action legally possible under the given facts against the airline and the pilots; whom will you specifically implead in these causes of action? (5%)
(B) How will you handle the cases of the passenger run over by the ambulance and the airline employee allowed to hitch a free ride to Cagayan de Oro? (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Against Fil-Asia Air and the pilots, the causes of action are breach of contract, quasi-delict, and criminal negligence; the ambulance crew and Fil-Asia Air are liable for the remaining victims. Under Articles 1755, 1758, 2176, and 2180 of the
Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What degree of diligence is required of a common carrier towards paying passengers under Article 1755 of the Civil Code?
Article 1755 mandates that common carriers exercise extraordinary diligence using the utmost care of very cautious persons.
Against whom can heirs of a deceased passenger file a cause of action for breach of contract of carriage?
A cause of action for breach of contract of carriage lies strictly against the contracting carrier, not individual pilots.
What degree of care does a common carrier owe to an employee carried gratuitously under Article 1758 of the Civil Code?
Under Article 1758, a common carrier owes at least ordinary diligence to passengers carried gratuitously.
Who is primarily liable under quasi-delict for the death of a passenger run over by an emergency response ambulance?
Choices available with full access.
Which primary statute governs common carrier liabilities, quasi-delict obligations, and contract of carriage rules in the Philippines?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Common Carrier Liability
Under Article 1755 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. When a passenger dies or is injured during an aircraft crash, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Liability for breach of contract of carriage arises directly against the airline company without need of proving specific officer negligence.
2. Quasi-Delict Liability
Under Article 2176 and Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, any person who by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Employers are primary and solidarily liable for quasi-delicts committed by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. In aviation accidents caused by pilot gross incompetence or intoxication, injured parties or third-party victims may institute quasi-delict actions jointly against the negligent pilots and the airline employer.
3. Gratuitous Passenger Duty
Under Article 1758 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability for negligence is valid if the passenger is carried gratuitously, but not for willful misconduct or gross negligence. However, even in gratuitous carriage or hitchhiking by an airline employee, the common carrier owes at least ordinary diligence to ensure safety. Failure to exercise ordinary care in pilot selection and flight operations renders the airline liable for damages resulting from an aviation crash.