NORBERTO QUISUMBING, SR., and GUNTHER LOEFFLER vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.,

G.R. No. L-50076 September 14, 1990

189 SCRA 605

Ponente: Narvasa, J.
FACTS:
Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. and Gunther Leoffler were among the of
PAL's plane in its flight of November 6,1968 which left Mactan City at
about 7:30 in the evening with Manila for its destination. On the same plane
was an NBI agent, Florencio Villarin, who immediately noticed Zaldy who
was a suspect in killing a judge. Villarin then tried to inform the pilot to
send message to his fellow NBI agents in Manila; however, the pilot refused
explaining that he could not send the message because it would be heard by
all ground aircraft stations.
Soon thereafter an exchange of gunshots ensued between Villarin and
'Zaldy' and the latter's companions. 'Zaldy' announced to the passengers and
the pilots in the cockpit that it was a hold-up and ordered the pilot not to
send any SOS. The hold-uppers divested passengers of their belongings.
Upon landing in Manila, Zaldy and his three companions managed to
escape.
Demands were thereafter made on PAL by Quisumbing and Loeffler
to indemnify them on their aforesaid loss. Contending that the "aforesaid
loss is a result of breach of PAL's contractual obligation to carry them and
their belongings and effects to their Manila destination without loss or
damage, and constitutes a serious dereliction of (PAL's) legal duty to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the same. PAL filed
answer denying liability, alleging inter alia that the robbery during the flight
and after the aircraft was forcibly landed at the Manila Airport did indeed
constitute force majeure, and neither of the plaintiffs had notified PAL "or its
crew or employees that they were in possession of cash, German marks and
valuable jewelries and watches" or surrendered said items to "the crew or
personnel on board the aircraft."
ISSUE:
Whether PAL is liable to the loss incurred by the petitioners.
RULING:
NO. the evidence does indeed fail to prove any want of diligence on the
part of PAL, or that, more specifically, it had failed to comply with
applicable regulations or universally accepted and observed procedures to
preclude hijacking; and that the particular acts singled out by the petitioners
as supposedly demonstrative of negligence were, in the light of the
circumstances of the case, not in truth negligent acts "sufficient to overcome
the force majeure nature of the armed robbery." The Court quite agrees,
too, with the Appellate Tribunal's wry observation that PAL's "failure to
take certain steps that a passenger in hindsight believes should have been
taken is not the negligence or misconduct which mingles with force majeure
as an active and cooperative cause.
Under the circumstance of the instant case, the acts of the airline and its
crew cannot be faulted as negligence. The hijackers had already shown their
willingness to kill. One passenger was in fact killed and another survived
gunshot wounds. The lives of the rest of the passengers and crew were more
important than their properties