GSIS v. Pacific Airways

6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
SECONDDIVISION
GOVERNMENTSERVICEG.R.No.170414
INSURANCESYSTEM,
Petitioner,
versus
PACIFICAIRWAYSCORPORATION,
ELYBUNGABONG,and
MICHAELGALVEZ,
Respondents.
xx
PHILIPPINEAIRLINES,INC.,G.R.No.170418
ROGELIOCASIO,and
RUELISAAC,
Petitioners,
versus
ELYBUNGABONGand
MICHAELGALVEZ,
Respondents.
xx
AIRTRANSPORTATIONOFFICE,G.R.No.170460
DANILOALZOLA,and
ERNESTO*LIM,Present:
Petitioners,
CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
PERALTA,
versusABAD,
PEREZ,**and
MENDOZA,JJ.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm
1/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
ELYBUNGABONG,and
MICHAELGALVEZ,
Respondents,
GOVERNMENTSERVICEPromulgated:
INSURANCESYSTEM,
Intervenor.August25,2010
xx
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
[1]
Before the Court are three consolidated petitions for review of the 28 October 2004
[2]
[3]
andthe15November2005Resolution oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
Decision
CVNo.73214.The28October2004Decisionaffirmedthe27July2001Decision
[4]
of
theRegionalTrialCourt(Branch112)ofPasayCity.The15November2005Resolution
modifiedthe28October2004DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
TheAntecedentFacts
On 2 April 1996, at around 6:45 p.m., the Twin Otter aircraft of Philippine Airways
[5]
Corporation(PAC)arrivedattheManilaInternationalAirport fromElNido,Palawan.
[6]
[7]
IncommandoftheaircraftwasElyB.Bungabong. WithBungabonginthecockpit
wasMichaelF.Galvezascopilot.
[8]
2/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
Upontouchdown,theTwinOttertaxiedalongtherunwayandproceededtotheSoriano
Hangartodisembarkitspassengers.
[9]
Afterthelastpassengerdisembarked,PACspilots
startedtheengineoftheTwinOtterinordertoproceedtothePACHangarlocatedatthe
[10]
otherendoftheairport.
Ataround7:18p.m.,Galvezcontactedgroundcontroltoask
[11]
RogelioLim,groundtrafficcontrollerondutyat
forclearancetotaxitotaxiwaydelta.
the Air Transportation Office (ATO), issued the clearance on condition that he be
[12]
contactedagainuponreachingtaxiwaydeltaintersection.
PACs pilots then proceeded to taxi to taxiway delta at about 7:19 and 19 seconds.
[13]
Upon reaching the intersection of taxiway delta, Galvez repeated the request to taxi to
taxiway delta, which request was granted.
[14]
Upon reaching fox 1, Galvez requested
clearancetomakearightturntofox1andtocrossrunway13inordertoproceedtofox1
[15]
bravo.
ATOgrantedtherequest.
[16]
Atthispoint,theTwinOtterwasstill350meters
[17]
away from runway 13.
Upon reaching runway 13, PACs pilots did not make a full
stop at the holding point to request clearance right before crossing runway 13.
[18]
Withoutsuchclearance,PACspilotsproceededtocrossrunway13.
Meanwhile, the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Boeing 737, manned by pilots Rogelio Casio
and Ruel Isaac, was preparing for takeoff along runway 13. The PAL pilots requested
clearancetopushandstart
[19]
onrunway13.ErnestoLinog,Jr.,airtrafficcontrolleron
[20]
dutyattheATOissuedtheclearance.
Subsequently,at7:20 and 18 seconds, Linog,
[21]
Jr.gavePALsBoeing737clearancetotakeoff.
PilotsCasioandIsaacthenproceeded
[22]
Whilealreadyontakeoffroll,Casiocaughtaglimpseof
withthetakeoffprocedure.
theTwinOtterontheleftsideoftheBoeing737abouttocrossrunway13.
[23]
3/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
While the Twin Otter was halfway through runway 13, Galvez noticed the Boeing 737
and told Bungabong that an airplane was approaching them from the right side.
Bungabongthensaid,DiyoskopoandgavefullpowertotheTwinOtter.
pilotsattemptedtoabortthetakeoffbyreversingthethrustoftheaircraft.
[24]
[25]
ThePAL
[26]
However,
[27]
theBoeing737stillcollidedwiththeTwinOtter.
[28]
TheBoeing737draggedtheTwinOtterabout100metersaway.
WhentheTwinOtter
stopped, PACs pilots ran away from the aircraft for fear it might explode.
[29]
While
observingtheTwinOtterfromasafedistance,theysawpassengersrunningdownfrom
[30]
When PACs pilots returned to the aircraft to get their personal
the Boeing 737.
[31]
belongings,theysawthattheTwinOtterwasatotalwreck.
At 7:21 and 2 seconds on that fateful evening, the PAL pilots informed ATOs control
tower that they had hit another aircraft, referring to the Twin Otter.
[32]
Bungabong
[33]
suffered sprain on his shoulder while Galvez had laceration on his left thumb.
An
ambulancebroughtthetwopilotstoMakatiMedicalCenterwheretheyweretreatedfor
seriousandslightphysicalinjuries.
[34]
On7May1996,PAC,Bungabong,andGalvezfiledintheRegionalTrialCourt(Branch
112)ofPasayCityacomplaint
[35]
forsumofmoneyanddamagesagainstPAL,Casio,
Isaac, ATO, Lim, Linog, Jr., and ATOs traffic control supervisor, Danilo Alzola. The
GovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS),asinsureroftheBoeing737thatfigured
inthecollision,intervened.
TheRulingoftheTrialCourt
4/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
The trial court ruled that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of
Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.,asATOstrafficcontrolsupervisor,groundtrafficcontroller,
andairtrafficcontroller,respectively,atthetimeofthecollision.Thetrialcourtfurther
held that the direct cause of the collision was the negligence of Casio and Isaac, as the
pilotsoftheBoeing737thatcollidedwiththeTwinOtter.Thedecretalportionofthetrial
courtsdecisionreads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants

Philippine Air Lines and its pilots, Rogelio Casio and Ruel Isaac, and Air
Transportation Office and its comptrollers, Danilo Alzola, Rogelio Lim and Ernesto
Linog,Jr.,jointlyandseverally,topay:
a) Plaintiff Pacific Airways Corporation the amount of Php15,000,000.00 and the

furtheramountofPhp100,000.00adayfromApril2,1996untilitisfullyreimbursed
for the value of its RPC1154 plane, as actual damages, and the amount of
Php3,000,000.00, as exemplarydamages,andthe amountof Php1,000,000.00, as and
forattorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation
[36]
b)PlaintiffsElyB.Bongabong
andMichaelF.Galvez,theamountofPhp5,000.00
each, as actual damages the amount of Php500,000.00, as and for moral damages
Php500,000.00asandforexemplarydamages,andtheamountofPhp50,000.00,asand
forattorneysfees
c)Defendantsare,likewise,orderedtopay,jointlyandseverally,toplaintiffsthecosts
ofthissuit.
[37]
SOORDERED.
PAL,Casio,Isaac,GSIS,ATO,Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.,allappealedthetrialcourts
DecisiontotheCourtofAppeals.
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
TheCourtofAppealsfoundthatthetrialcourtdidnotcommitanyreversibleerror.Inits
28October2004decision,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedintotothedecisionofthetrial
court,thus:
WHEREFORE,theinstantappealisherebyDISMISSED.ThedecisionoftheRegional
TrialCourt,Branch112,PasayCitydatedJuly27,2001isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.
5/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
[38]
SOORDERED.
PAL,Casio,Isaac,GSIS,ATO,Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.,filedtheirrespectivemotions
for reconsideration. The appellate court denied for lack of merit all the motions for
reconsiderationexcepttheonefiledbyLinog,Jr.
[39]
TheCourtofAppealsgaveweighttothe20March2003Decision
onappealofthe
RTC(Branch108)ofPasayCityinCriminalCaseNo.021979acquittingLinog,Jr.,who
was convicted in the original Decision together with Alzola and Lim, of reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property with serious and slight physical injuries in
connection with the collision. Since Alzola and Lim did not appeal, the judgment of
convictionagainstthembecamefinal.AlzolaandLimweresentencedtoarrestomayoror
[40]
imprisonmentfortwo(2)months.
TheCourtofAppealsreasonedthatsincethetrialcourtinthecriminalcasehasruledthat
Linog,Jr.wasnotnegligent,thentheactfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedidnot
exist.Inits15November2005Resolution,theCourtofAppealsdecreed:
WHEREFORE,thedecisionsubjectofthemotionsforreconsiderationisMODIFIED
inthatthecaseagainstdefendantappellantERNESTOLINOG,JR.isdismissed.The
decisionisAFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.
[41]
SOORDERED.
Hence,theinstantconsolidatedpetitionsforreview.
In G.R. No. 170418, petitioners PAL, Casio, and Isaac argue that the Court of Appeals
should have applied the emergency rule instead of the last clear chance doctrine.
Petitioners claim that even if the PAL pilots were negligent, PAL had exercised due
diligenceintheselectionandsupervisionofitspilots.PetitionerscontendthattheCourt
of Appeals awarded damages without any specific supporting proof as required by law.
PetitionersalsoclaimthattheCourtofAppealsshouldhaveawardedtheircounterclaim
6/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
fordamages.
InG.R.No.170414,petitionerGSISpointsoutthatPACspilotsweretheonesguiltyof
negligenceastheyviolatedtheRulesoftheAir,whichprovidethatrightofwaybelongs
totheaircraftontakeoffrollandtheaircraftontherightsideofanother.GSIS stresses
that such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision. GSIS posits that PAC,
Bungabong,andGalvezshouldbeheldsolidarilyliabletopayGSISthecostofrepairing
theinsuredaircraft.
InG.R.No.170460,petitionersATO,Alzola,andLimcallourattentiontothefactthat
PACwasamerelessee,nottheowneroftheTwinOtter.TheyarguethatPAC,asmere
lessee, was not the real partyininterest in the complaint seeking recovery for damages
sustained by the Twin Otter. Petitioners maintain that ground and air traffic clearances
were the joint responsibility of ATO and the pilotsincommand. Petitioners aver that
BungabongandGalvezwerenegligentinaskingforclearancetocrossanactiverunway
whilestill350metersawayfromtherunway.PetitionersclaimthatPALhadtherightof
wayandthatPACspilotshadthelastclearchancetopreventthecollision.
TheIssue
Thesoleissueforresolutioniswhoamongthepartiesisliablefornegligenceunderthe
circumstances.
TheCourtsRuling
Thepetitionsaremeritorious.
In a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. This rule,
however, admits of certain exceptions as when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
premised on a misapprehension of facts or the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain
relevantfactswhich,ifproperlyconsidered,willjustifyadifferentconclusion.
[42]
7/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
Afterthoroughlygoingovertheevidenceonrecordinthiscase,weareunabletosustain
thefindingoffactandlegalconclusionoftheCourtofAppeals.
To ascertain who among the parties is liable for negligence, we must refer to the
applicablerulesgoverningthespecifictrafficmanagementofaircraftsatanairport.The
[43]
RulesoftheAir
oftheAirTransportationOfficeapplytoallaircraftsregisteredinthe
[44]
TheBoeing737andtheTwinOtterinthiscasewerebothregisteredin
Philippines.
thePhilippines.BotharethussubjecttotheRulesoftheAir.Incaseofdangerofcollision
betweentwoaircrafts,theRulesoftheAirstate:
2.2.4.7 Surface Movement of Aircraft. In case of danger of collision between two

aircraftstaxiingonthemaneuveringareaofanaerodrome,thefollowingshallapply:
a)Whentwoaircraftsareapproachingheadon,orapproximatelyso,eachshallstopor
wherepracticable,alteritscoursetotherightsoastokeepwellclear.
b)Whentwoaircraftsareonaconvergingcourse,theonewhichhastheotheron
[45]
itsrightshallgiveway.
(Emphasissupplied)
Inthiscase,however,theBoeing737andtheTwinOtterwerenotbothtaxiingatthetime
ofthecollision.OnlytheTwinOtterwastaxiing.TheBoeing737wasalreadyontakeoff
roll.TheRulesoftheAirprovide:
2.2.4.6TakingOff.Anaircrafttaxiingonthemaneuveringareaofanaerodromeshall
[46]
givewaytoaircrafttakingofforabouttotakeoff.
(Emphasissupplied)
Therefore,PALsaircrafthadtherightofwayatthetimeofcollision,notsimplybecause
itwasontherightsideofPACsaircraft,butmoresignificantly,becauseitwastakingoff
orabouttotakeoff.
PACsPilots
For disregarding PALs right of way, PACs pilots were grossly negligent. Gross
negligenceisonethatischaracterizedbythewantofevenslightcare,actingoromitting
to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
8/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
intentionallywithaconsciousindifferencetoconsequencesinsofarasotherpersonsmay
[47]
beaffected.
WefindithardtobelievethatPACspilotsdidnotseetheBoeing737whentheylooked
totheleftandtotherightbeforeapproachingtherunway.Itwasaclearsummerevening
inAprilandtheBoeing737,only200metersaway,haditsinboardlights,outboardlights,
taxi lights, and logo lights on before and during the actual takeoff roll.
[48]
The only
plausibleexplanationwhyPACspilotsdidnotseetheBoeing737wasthattheydidnot
reallylooktotheleftandtotherightbeforecrossingtheactiverunway.
Records show that PACs pilots, while still 350 meters away, prematurely requested
[49]
clearance to cross the active runway.
ATO points out that PACs pilots should have
madeafullstopattheholdingpointtoaskforupdatedclearancerightbeforecrossingthe
active runway.
[50]
Had PACs pilots done so, ATO would by then be in a position to
determineiftherewasanaircraftonatakeoffrollattherunway.Thecollisionwouldnot
havehappened.
ATO,Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.
The Rules of Air Control govern airplane traffic management and clearance at the then
ManilaInternationalAirport.Itcontainsseveralprovisionsindicatingthatairplanetraffic
management and clearance are not the sole responsibility of ATO and its traffic
controllers, but of the pilotsincommand of aircrafts as well. The Rules of Air Control
state:
1.3Thepilotincommandofanaircraftshall,whethermanipulatingthecontrolsor
not,beresponsiblefortheoperationoftheaircraftinaccordancewiththerulesofthe
air,exceptthathemaydepartfromtheserulesincircumstancesthatrendersuch
departureabsolutelynecessaryintheinterestofsafety.(Emphasissupplied)
1.5 The pilotincommand of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the
[51]
dispositionoftheaircraftwhileheisincommand.
(Emphasissupplied)
3.1 Clearances are based solely on expediting and separating aircraft and do not
constitute authority to violate any applicable regulations for promoting safety of
9/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
flightoperationsorforanyotherpurpose.(Emphasissupplied)
xxxx
If an air traffic control clearance is not suitable to the pilotincommand of an
[52]
aircraft, he may request, and, if practicable, obtain an amended clearance.
(Emphasissupplied)
10.1.5 Clearances issued by controllers relate to traffic and aerodrome

conditions only and do not relieve a pilot of any responsibility whatsoever in
[53]
connection with a possible violation of applicable rules and regulations.
(Emphasissupplied)
Therefore,evenifATOgavebothPALspilotsandPACspilotsclearancetotakeoffand
clearancetocrossrunway13,respectively,itremainedtheprimaryresponsibilityofthe
pilotsincommandtoseetoitthattherespectiveclearancesgivenweresuitable.Sincethe
pilotsincommand have the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft, they
cannot,incaseacollisionoccurs,passtheblametoATOforissuingclearancesthatturn
outtobeunsuitable.
The clearance to cross runway 13, premature as it was, was not an absolute license for
PACspilotstorecklesslymaneuvertheTwinOtteracrossanactiverunway.PACspilots
should have stopped first at the holding point to ask for clearance to cross the active
runway.Itwaswrongforthemtohavereliedonaprematurelyrequestedclearancewhich
was issued while they were still 350 meters away. Their defense, that it did not matter
whethertheclearancewasprematureornotaslongastheclearancewasactuallygranted,
[54]
only reveals their poor judgment and gross negligence in the performance of their
duties.
Ontheotherhand,evidenceonrecordshowsthattheairtrafficcontrollerproperlyissued
theclearancetotakeofftotheBoeing737.Nothingonrecordindicatesanyirregularityin
the issuance of the clearance. In fact, the trial court, in the criminal case for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property with serious and slight physical injuries in
connectionwiththecollision,ruledthatairtrafficcontrollerLinog,Jr.wasnotnegligent.
TheCourtofAppeals,inits15November2005Resolution,absolvedLinog,Jr.ofcivil
liabilityfordamagesbasedonhisacquittalinthecriminalcase.
10/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
While Alzola and Lim, as found by the trial court in the criminal case for reckless
imprudence, may have been negligent in the performance of their functions, such
[55]
Their contributory negligence arises from their
negligence is only contributory.
grantingtheprematurerequestofPACspilotsforclearancetocrossrunway13whilethe
TwinOtterwasstill350metersawayfromrunway13.However,asexplainedearlier,the
granting of their premature request for clearance did not relieve PACs pilots from
complyingwiththeRulesoftheAir.
PALsPilots
RecordsshowthatPALspilotstimelyrequestedclearancetotakeoff.Linog,Jr.,ATOsair
traffic controller, duly issued the clearance to take off.
[56]
Under the Rules of the Air,
[57]
PALs aircraft being on takeoff roll undisputedly had the right of way.
Further, the
RulesofAirControlprovide:
2.2.4.1Theaircraftthathastherightofwayshallmaintainitsheadingandspeed,xx
[58]
x.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,evenifCasionoticedfromthecornerofhiseyeasmallairplanetaxiingontheleft
[59]
side and approaching halfway of fox 1,
it was fairly reasonable for PALs pilots to
assume that they may proceed with the takeoff because the taxiing aircraft would
naturallyrespecttheirrightofwayandnotventuretocrosstheactiverunwaywhilethe
Boeing737wasontakeoffroll.
[60]
where the Court applied the
Applicable by analogy is the case of Santos v. BLTB,
principlethatamotoristwhoisproperlyproceedingonhisownsideofthehighway,even
afterheseesanapproachingmotoristcomingtowardhimonthewrongside,isgenerally
entitledtoassumethattheothermotoristwillreturntohisproperlaneoftraffic.
11/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
ProximateCause
Afterassiduouslystudyingtherecordsofthiscaseandcarefullyweighingthearguments
oftheparties,weareconvincedthattheimmediateandproximatecaseofthecollisionis
thegrossnegligenceofPACspilots.Proximatecauseisdefinedasthatcause,which,in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
theinjury,andwithoutwhichtheresultwouldnothaveoccurred.
[61]
Inthiscase,thefact
that PACs pilots disregarded PALs right of way and did not ask for updated clearance
rightbeforecrossinganactiverunwaywastheproximatecauseofthecollision.Wereit
not for such gross negligence on the part of PACs pilots, the collision would not have
happened.
The Civil Code provides that when a plaintiffs own negligence is the immediate and
proximatecauseofhisinjury,hecannotrecoverdamages.
Art.2179.When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damagestobeawarded.(Emphasissupplied)
[62]
PAC and its pilots, whose own gross
Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence,
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of their own injuries, must bear the
costofsuchinjuries.Theycannotrecoverdamages.CivilCaseNo.960565forsumof
money and damages, which PAC, Bungabong, and Galvez filed against PAL, Casio,
Isaac, ATO, Alzola, Lim, and Linog, Jr. should have been dismissed for lack of legal
basis.
PALsCounterclaims
We find supported by law and evidence on record PALs counterclaim for actual or
[63]
compensatorydamagesbutonlyintheamountofUS$548,819.93
representinglease
charges during the period the Boeing 737 was not flying. The said amount cannot be
claimed against the insurance policy covering the Boeing 737. In this connection, the
CivilCodeprovides:
12/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
Art. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity
fromtheinsurancecompanyfortheinjuryorlossarisingoutofthewrongorbreachof
contractcomplainedof,theinsurancecompanyshallbesubrogatedtotherightsofthe
insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the
amountpaidbytheinsurancecompanydoesnotfullycovertheinjuryorloss,the
aggrievedpartyshallbeentitledtorecoverthedeficiencyfromthepersoncausing
thelossorinjury.(Emphasissupplied)
Underthelaw,GSIS,asinsurersubrogeeofPALsrighttoclaimactualorcompensatory
damages in connection with the repair of the damaged Boeing 737, is entitled to
reimbursementfortheamountitadvanced.GSISclaimsreimbursementfortheamountof
[64]
US$2,775,366.84.
In support of its claim, GSIS presented statements of account,
[65]
checkvouchers,andinvoices
provingpaymentfortherepairoftheBoeing737inthe
total amount of US$2,775,366.84. We find the claim fully supported by evidence on
recordandthusweresolvetograntthesame.
WithregardtoPALsothercounterclaims,settledistherulethattheawardofmoraland
exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees is discretionary based on the facts and
circumstancesofeachcase.Theactuallossessustainedbytheaggrievedpartiesandthe
gravity of the injuries must be considered in arriving at reasonable levels.
[66]
Understandably,CasioandIsaacsufferedsleeplessnightsandweretemporarilyunableto
work after the collision. They are thus entitled to moral damages as well as exemplary
damagesconsideringthatPACspilotsactedwithgrossnegligence.
[67]
Attorneysfeesare
[68]
generally not recoverable except when exemplary damages are awarded
as in this
case.WethusdeemtheamountsofP100,000inmoraldamages,P100,000inexemplary
damages,andP50,000inattorneysfeestobeinaccordancewithprevailingjurisprudence
andappropriategiventhecircumstances.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitions. We SET ASIDE the 28 October 2004

Decisionandthe15November2005ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CV
No. 73214 affirming in toto the 27 July 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(Branch 112) of Pasay City. However, we SUSTAIN the dismissal of the case against
13/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
ErnestoLinog,Jr.
Civil Case No. 960565 for sum of money and damages, filed by Pacific Airways
Corporation(PAC),ElyB.Bungabong,andMichaelF.Galvez,isDISMISSEDforlack
oflegalbasis.
PacificAirwaysCorporation,ElyB.Bungabong,andMichaelF.GalvezareORDERED
tosolidarilypay:
(1) Philippine Airlines, Inc. actual or compensatory damages in the amount of

US$548,819.93
(2) Rogelio Casio and Ruel Isaac individually moral damages in the amount of
P100,000,exemplarydamagesintheamountofP100,000,andattorneysfeesin
theamountofP50,000and
(3)theGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem,asinsurersubrogeeofPhilippine
Airlines,actualorcompensatorydamagesintheamountofUS$2,775,366.84.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
14/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
ROBERTOA.ABADJOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
JOSEC.MENDOZA
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
15/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
*RogelioinsomepartsoftheRecords.
**DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledated23August2010.
[1]
UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
Rollo(G.R.No.170414),pp.1135.PennedbyAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.,withAssociateJusticesRegaladoE.
MaambongandLucenitoN.Tagle,concurring.
[3]
Id.at3638.PennedbyAssociateJusticeMarioL.GuarinaIII,withAssociateJusticesRobertoA.BarriosandMariflor
PunzalanCastillo,concurring.
16/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
[4]
Id.at155180.PennedbyJudgeManuelP.Dumatol.
[5]
NowNinoyAquinoInternationalAirport.
[6]
StipulationofFacts.Records,p.1503.
[7]
BongabonginsomepartsoftheRecords.TSN,6October1997,pp.67
[8]
TSN,6October1997,p.6.
[9]
Id.at9.
[10]
Id.at10.
[11]
Id.at11.
[12]
Id.at12.
[13]
[14]
[15]
Id.
[16]
[17]
TSN,7January1999,p.15.
[18]
Records,p.776.
[19]
Q:Whatisthispushandstartclearance?
A:Pushandstartclearance,whentheaircraftisalreadyreadythepassengertheyhavetobepushedtothestarting
pointandstarttheengine.
[20]
Id.at3637.
[21]
Id.at38.
[22]
Id.at37.
[23]
TSN,17May1999,p.55.
[24]
TSN,6October1997,pp.1516.
[25]
Id.at16.
[26]
TSN,8June2000,pp.1718.
[27]
TSN,16June1999,pp.45.
[28]
[29]
Id.
[30]
Id.at18.
[31]
Id.at19.
[32]
[33]
[34]
Id.at20.
[35]
Records,pp.111.
[36]
Seenote7.
17/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
[37]
Records,pp.14951520.
[38]
Rollo(G.R.No.170414),p.206.
[39]
Rollo(G.R.No.170418),pp.144150.PennedbyJudgePriscillaC.Mijares.
[40]
Id.at146.
[41]
Rollo(G.R.No.170414),p.38.
[42]
MEABuilders,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,490Phil.565(2005).
[43]
FormallyofferedbyATOasExhibit9.
[44]
1.1.1oftheRulesoftheAir.
[45]
Records,p.779.
[46]
Id.
[47]
Magalingv.Ong,G.R.No.173333,13August2008,562SCRA152.
[48]
TSN,17May1999,pp.4549.
[49]
TSN,7January1999,pp.1415.
[50]
Rollo(G.R.No.170460),ATOsMemorandum,pp.640641.
[51]
Records,p.777.
[52]
Id.at776.
[53]
Id.at778.
[54]
Rollo(G.R.No.170418),p.178.ConsolidatedCommentofRespondents,p.20.
[55]
Ramosv.C.O.L.RealtyCorporation,G.R.No.184905,28August2009,597SCRA526.
[56]
[57]
Records,p.779.
[58]
Id.
[59]
TSN,17May1999,pp.6061.
[60]
145Phil.422(1970).
[61]
Ramosv.C.O.L.RealtyCorporation,supranote55.
[62]
Id.
[63]
Rollo(G.R.No.170418),p.373.DefendantsFormalOfferofExhibits,Exhibit29,p.25.
[64]
Rollo(G.R.No.170414),p.723.
[65]
Records,pp.1439,1450.DefendantsFormalOfferofExhibits,Exhibit24b,p.16.
[66]
Plenov.CourtofAppeals,244Phil.213(1988).
[67]
Article2231oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Art.2231.Inquasidelicts,exemplarydamagesmaybegrantedifthedefendantactedwithgrossnegligence.
[68]
Article2208oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Art.2208.Intheabsenceofstipulation,attorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation,otherthanjudicialcosts,cannotbe
recovered,except:
18/19
6/28/2015
G.R.No.170414
(1)Whenexemplarydamagesareawarded
xxxx
19/19

GSIS v. Pacific Airways

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSIS v. Pacific Airways

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/28/2015

the Boeing 737.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants

a) Plaintiff Pacific Airways Corporation the amount of Php15,000,000.00 and the

2.2.4.7 Surface Movement of Aircraft. In case of danger of collision between two

Had PACs pilots done so, ATO would by then be in a position to

1.5 The pilotincommand of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the

10.1.5 Clearances issued by controllers relate to traffic and aerodrome

negligence is only contributory.

side and approaching halfway of fox 1,

it was fairly reasonable for PALs pilots to

Applicable by analogy is the case of Santos v. BLTB,

Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence,

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitions. We SET ASIDE the 28 October 2004

(1) Philippine Airlines, Inc. actual or compensatory damages in the amount of

You might also like