Common Carriers Flashcards
2013 Mercantile Law (Essay)
IX.
Fil-Asia Air Flight 916 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 150 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?
A complaint for breach of contract of carriage can be filed against Fil-Asia Air for failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in transporting the passengers safely from their point of embarkation to their destination.
(Article 1755, New Civil Code of the Philippines)
A complaint based on a quasi-delict can be filed against the pilots because of their fault and negligence. (Article 2176, New Civil Code of the Philippines) Fil-Asia Air can be included for negligence in the selection and supervision of the pilots. (Article 2180, New Civil Code of the Philippines)
A third cause of action may be a criminal prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against two pilots. The airline will be subsidiary liable for the civil liability only after the pilots are convicted and found to be insolvent.
2013 Mercantile Law (Essay)
IX.
Fil-Asia Air Flight 916 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 150 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 question came up:
(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?
It is the driver of the ambulance and his employer who should be liable for damages, because a passenger was run over. This is in accordance with Article 2176 and 2180 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. There could also be a criminal prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against the ambulance driver and the consequent civil liability.
Since the airline employee was being transported gratuitously, Fil-Asia air was not required to exercise extraordinary diligence for his safety and only ordinary care.
(Lara v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907, June 30, 1958)
