CASE DIGEST: CHINA AIRLINES LTD. VS COURT OF APPEALS

CHINA AIRLINES LTD.

VS

COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 45985, 18 May 1990

This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA.

FACTS:

Jose Pagsibigan purchased a plane ticket for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from the Transaire Travel Agency.The said agency contacted Philippine Airlines (PAL) which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of China Airlines (CAL).PAL, through its ticketing agent Roberto Espiritu, issued to Pagsibigan the plane ticket which showed that the latter had been booked at the June 10, 1968 5:20 PM flight of China Airlines, departing from Manila for Taipei.When Pagisibigan showed up at the airport an hour before the supposed scheduled time of departure, he was informed that the CAL plane he was supposed to take for Taipei had left at 10:20 AM that day.The PAL employees then made appropriate arrangements so that he could take the PAL’s flight toTaipei the following day. Pagsibigan took the re-scheduled flight.A few months after, he filed a complaint for moral damages and attorney’s fees against PAL. He alleged that Espiritu had been grossly negligent in his duties.In its defense, PAL alleged that: (1) the departure time indicated on Pagsibigan’s plane ticket was furnished and confirmed by CAL; and (2) CAL did not inform the issuing PAL branch of the revised timetable of CAL flights. Hence, PAL asserted a cross-claim against CAL.CAL, for its part, averred that: (1) all airlines, including PAL, were informed of the revised schedule of flights; (2) notices of these revised schedule were furnished to all sales agent; and (3) the issuing PAL branch had in fact been issuing and selling tickets based on the revised time schedule. Thus, CAL also asserted a cross claim against PAL.

The trial court found PAL and Roberto Espiritu jointly and severally liable by way of exemplary damages. It did not award moral damages. CAL was exonerated.CA ruled out the claim for moral and exemplary damages, and instead awarded nominal damages.

ISSUE:Who should be held liable?

HELD:

The SC noted that Pagsibigan has opted to seek redress by pursuing two remedies at the same time, that is, to enforce the civil liability of CAL for breach of contract and, likewise, to recover from PAL and Espiritu for tort or culpa aquiliana.A perusal of the complaint of Pagisbigan will disclose that the allegations therein make out a case for a quasi-delict. Had Pagisibigan intended to maintain an action based on breach of contract, he could have sued CAL alone considering that PAL is not a real party to the contractIt is thus evident that when Pagsibigan sensed that he cannot hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict, he made a detour on appeal, by claiming that his action against CAL is based on breach of contract of carriage.SC did not allow Pagsibigan to change his theory at this stage because it would be unfair for CAL as it would have no opportunity to present further evidence material to the new theory.But there is no basis to hold CAL liable on a quasi-delict, hence its exoneration from any liability for fault or negligence.

            With respect to PAL and Espiritu, PAL’s main defense is that is only an agent. As a general proposition, an agent who duly acts as such is not personally liable to third persons. However, there are admitted exceptions, as in this case where the agent is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed by his employee. In an action premised on the employee’s negligence, whereby Pagsibigan seeks recovery for the damages from both PAL and Espiritu without qualification, what is sought to be imposed is the direct and primary liability of PAL as an employer. 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. This presumption, however, may be rebutted by 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. PAL failed to overcome such presumption. As found by CA, PAL was duly informed of CAL’s revised schedule, and in fact, PAL had been issuing and selling ticket based on said revised time schedule. For his negligence, Espiritu is primarily liable to Pagisbigan under Article 2176 of the CC. For the failure of PAL to rebut the legal presumption of negligence, it is also primarily liable under Article 2180 of CC. Under Article 2180, all that is required is that the employee, by his negligence, committed a quasi-delict which caused damage to another, and this suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the tortious act of the employee. PAL, however, can demand from Espiritu reimbursement of the amount which it will have to pay the offended party’s claim.

Decision modified.