Case Digest: China Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 45985

 

China Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 449, G.R. No. 45985, 18 May 1990

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

Jose Pagsibagan, General Manager of Rentokil (Phil.) Inc. purchased an airline ticket for Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong-Manila with Philippine Airlines which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of China Air Lines. His plane ticket indicated that he is booked on CAL CI Flight No. 812 to depart from Manila for Taipei on June 10, 1968 at 5:20 p.m. as issued by PAL, through its ticketing clerk defendant Roberto Espiritu. One hour before his flight, Pagsibagan was informed that Flight No. 812 bound to Taipei had already left at 10:20. 

Immediately, PAL employees made appropriate arrangements for Pagsibagan to take the next flight to Taipei the following day, to which he arrived around noontime. Pagsibagan filed a complaint for damages, alleging further the negligence of Roberto Espiritu. PAL on its defense alleges that its ticketing office through Roberto Espiritu asked for confirmation from CAL before issuing the ticket to Mr. Pagsibagan, which CAL confirmed. Defendant China Air Lines, for its part, disclaims liability for the negligence and incompetence of the employees of PAL. 

Moreover, CAL avers that it had properly notified PAL of the flight schedule. RTC ruled that PAL and its employee shall indemnify Pagsibagan. Complaint is dismissed with respect to CAL. CA sustained the ruling of the RTC denying Pagsibagan’s claim for moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not multi carriers may be held liable in one contract of carriage.   

RULING

No.

Under the law, when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there is instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of the employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a 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.

In this case, CAL was absolved because the court said that the latter did not contribute to the negligence committed by therein defendants-appellants PAL and Roberto Espiritu. PAL and Roberto Espiritu are declared jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of P10,000.00 by way of nominal damages, without prejudice to the right of PAL to recover from Roberto Espiritu reimbursement of the damages that it may pay respondent Jose Pagsibigan.