G.R. No.

L-55300 March 15, 1990 explaining to them especially to its leader, Commander Zapata, of
the inherent fuel limitations of the plane and that they are not
FRANKLIN G. GACAL and CORAZON M. GACAL, the latter assisted rated for international flights, the hijackers directed the pilot to fly
by her husband, FRANKLIN G. GACAL,petitioners, to Sabah. With the same explanation, they relented and directed
vs. the aircraft to land at Zamboanga Airport, Zamboanga City for
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., and THE HONORABLE PEDRO refueling. The aircraft landed at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of
SAMSON C. ANIMAS, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of the May 21, 1976 at Zamboanga Airport. When the plane began to
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SOUTH COTABATO, BRANCH taxi at the runway, it was met by two armored cars of the military
I, respondents. with machine guns pointed at the plane, and it stopped there. The
rebels thru its commander demanded that a DC-aircraft take them
Vicente A. Mirabueno for petitioners. to Libya with the President of the defendant company as hostage
and that they be given $375,000 and six (6) armalites, otherwise
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private respondent. they will blow up the plane if their demands will not be met by the
government and Philippine Air Lines. Meanwhile, the passengers
were not served any food nor water and it was only on May 23, a
Sunday, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon that they were
PARAS, J.: served 1/4 slice of a sandwich and 1/10 cup of PAL water. After
that, relatives of the hijackers were allowed to board the plane but
This is a, petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of immediately after they alighted therefrom, an armored car
First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch 1, *promulgated on August 26, bumped the stairs. That commenced the battle between the
1980 dismissing three (3) consolidated cases for damages: Civil Case military and the hijackers which led ultimately to the liberation of
No. 1701, Civil Case No. 1773 and Civil Case No. 1797 (Rollo, p. 35). the surviving crew and the passengers, with the final score of ten
(10) passengers and three (3) hijackers dead on the spot and
The facts, as found by respondent court, are as follows: three (3) hijackers captured.

Plaintiffs Franklin G. Gacal and his wife, Corazon M. City Fiscal Franklin G. Gacal was unhurt. Mrs. Corazon
Gacal, Bonifacio S. Anislag and his wife, Mansueta L. Anislag, M. Gacal suffered injuries in the course of her jumping out of the
and the late Elma de Guzman, were then passengers boarding plane when it was peppered with bullets by the army and after
defendant's BAC 1-11 at Davao Airport for a flight to Manila, not two (2) hand grenades exploded inside the plane. She was
knowing that on the same flight, Macalinog, Taurac Pendatum hospitalized at General Santos Doctors Hospital, General Santos
known as Commander Zapata, Nasser Omar, Liling Pusuan City, for two (2) days, spending P245.60 for hospital and medical
Radia, Dimantong Dimarosing and Mike Randa, all of Marawi City expenses, Assistant City Fiscal Bonifacio S. Anislag also escaped
and members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), were unhurt but Mrs. Anislag suffered a fracture at the radial bone of
their co-passengers, three (3) armed with grenades, two (2) with . her left elbow for which she was hospitalized and operated on at
45 caliber pistols, and one with a .22 caliber pistol. Ten (10) the San Pedro Hospital, Davao City, and therefore, at Davao
minutes after take off at about 2:30 in the afternoon, the hijackers Regional Hospital, Davao City, spending P4,500.00. Elma de
brandishing their respective firearms announced the hijacking of Guzman died because of that battle. Hence, the action of
the aircraft and directed its pilot to fly to Libya. With the pilot
 damages instituted by the plaintiffs demanding the following personnel in their failure to frisk the passengers adequately in order to
damages, to wit: discover hidden weapons in the bodies of the six (6) hijackers. They
claimed that despite the prevalence of skyjacking, PAL did not use a
Civil Case No. 1701 metal detector which is the most effective means of discovering potential
skyjackers among the passengers (Rollo, pp. 6-7).
City Fiscal Franklin G. Gacal and Mrs. Corazon M.
Gacal actual damages: P245.60 for hospital and Respondent Airline averred that in the performance of its obligation to
medical expenses of Mrs Gacal; P8,995.00 for their safely transport passengers as far as human care and foresight can
personal belongings which were lost and not recovered; provide, it has exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
P50,000.00 each for moral damages; and P5,000.00 for with due regard to all circumstances, but the security checks and
attorney's fees, apart from the prayer for an award of measures and surveillance precautions in all flights, including the
exemplary damages (Record, pp. 4-6, Civil Case No. inspection of baggages and cargo and frisking of passengers at the
1701). Davao Airport were performed and rendered solely by military personnel
who under appropriate authority had assumed exclusive jurisdiction over
Civil Case No. 1773 the same in all airports in the Philippines.

xxx xxx xxx Similarly, the negotiations with the hijackers were a purely government
matter and a military operation, handled by and subject to the absolute
Civil Case No. 1797 and exclusive jurisdiction of the military authorities. Hence, it concluded
that the accident that befell RP-C1161 was caused by fortuitous
xxx xxx xxx event, force majeure and other causes beyond the control of the
respondent Airline.
The trial court, on August 26, 1980, dismissed the complaints finding that
all the damages sustained in the premises were attributed to force The determinative issue in this case is whether or not hijacking or air
majeure. piracy during martial law and under the circumstances obtaining herein, is
a caso fortuito or force majeure which would exempt an aircraft from
On September 12, 1980 the spouses Franklin G. Gacal and Corazon M. payment of damages to its passengers whose lives were put in jeopardy
Gacal, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1701, filed a notice of appeal with the and whose personal belongings were lost during the incident.
lower court on pure questions of law (Rollo, p. 55) and the petition for
review oncertiorari was filed with this Court on October 20, 1980 (Rollo, Under the Civil Code, common carriers are required to exercise
p. 30). extraordinary diligence in their vigilance over the goods and for the safety
of passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of
The Court gave due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 147) and both parties each case (Article 1733). They are presumed at fault or to have acted
filed their respective briefs but petitioner failed to file reply brief which was negligently whenever a passenger dies or is injured (Philippine Airlines,
noted by the Court in the resolution dated May 3, 1982 (Rollo, p. 183). Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 124 SCRA 583 [1983]) or
for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods in cases other than
Petitioners alleged that the main cause of the unfortunate incident is the those enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code (Eastern Shipping
gross, wanton and inexcusable negligence of respondent Airline Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 463 [1987]).
The source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, In order to constitute a caso fortuito or force majeure that would exempt a
and by entering into said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers person from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, it is necessary
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. There is breach of that the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of
this obligation if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all the the obligation must be independent of the human will (the will of the
circumstances of the case in exercise of the utmost diligence of a very debtor or the obligor); (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or
cautious person (Isaac v. Ammen Transportation Co., 101 Phil. 1046 unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the
[1957]; Juntilla v. Fontanar, 136 SCRA 624 [1985]). debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must
be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the
It is the duty of a common carrier to overcome the presumption of creditor (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924]; Austria v. Court of Appeals,
negligence (Philippine National Railways v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 39 SCRA 527 [1971]; Estrada v. Consolacion, supra; Vasquez v. Court of
87 [1985]) and it must be shown that the carrier had observed the Appeals, 138 SCRA 553 [1985]; Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of
required extraordinary diligence of a very cautious person as far as Appeals, 144 SCRA 596 [1986]). Caso fortuito or force majeure, by
human care and foresight can provide or that the accident was caused by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable, events
a fortuitous event (Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 SCRA 523 [1976]). Thus, that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable. It is,
as ruled by this Court, no person shall be responsible for those "events therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or
which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were inevitable. anticipated, as is commonly believed, but it must be one impossible to
(Article 1174, Civil Code). The term is synonymous with caso foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not
fortuito (Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 [1924]) which is of the same sense impossibility to foresee the same (Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring
as "force majeure" (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 17, p. Corporation, 21 SCRA 279 [1967]).
362).
Applying the above guidelines to the case at bar, the failure to transport
petitioners safely from Davao to Manila was due to the skyjacking
incident staged by six (6) passengers of the same plane, all members of
the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), without any connection with
private respondent, hence, independent of the will of either the PAL or of
its passengers.

Under normal circumstances, PAL might have foreseen the skyjacking

incident which could have been avoided had there been a more thorough
frisking of passengers and inspection of baggages as authorized by R.A.
No. 6235. But the incident in question occurred during Martial Law where
there was a military take-over of airport security including the frisking of
passengers and the inspection of their luggage preparatory to boarding
domestic and international flights. In fact military take-over was
specifically announced on October 20, 1973 by General Jose L.
Rancudo, Commanding General of the Philippine Air Force in a letter to
Brig. Gen. Jesus Singson, then Director of the Civil Aeronautics
Administration (Rollo, pp. 71-72) later confirmed shortly before the
hijacking incident of May 21, 1976 by Letter of Instruction No. 399 issued passengers who suffered death or injuries in their persons and for loss of
on April 28, 1976 (Rollo, p. 72). their baggages.

Otherwise stated, these events rendered it impossible for PAL to perform PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
its obligations in a nominal manner and obviously it cannot be faulted with merit and the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato,
negligence in the performance of duty taken over by the Armed Forces of Branch I is hereby AFFIRMED.
the Philippines to the exclusion of the former.
SO ORDERED.
Finally, there is no dispute that the fourth element has also been satisfied.
Consequently the existence of force majeure has been established
exempting respondent PAL from the payment of damages to its