Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co. G.R. No. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 Villamor, J.: Facts

LANDINGIN vs. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO.
G.R. No. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970

VILLAMOR, J.:
FACTS:
In 1963, plaintiff’s daughters Leonila Landingin and Estrela Garcuia were among the
passengers in the bus driven by defendant Marcelo Oligan and owned and operated by
defendant PANTRANCO on an excursion trip from Dagupan City to Baguio City and back.
Unfortunately, upon reaching an uphill point in Baguio City, the driver suddenly swerved
and steered the bus toward the mountainside. Leonila and Estrella together with several
other passengers were thrown out of the bus through its open side unto the road causing
the siblings’ death.
Consequently, defendant driver had been convicted of multiple homicide and
multiple slight physical injuries while complaints for damages were filed by plaintiffs against
PANTRANCO.
The trial court ruled that there was no negligence on the part of either the
defendants, and that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event.
Nevertheless, the defendant instituted an appeal assailing the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE :
WON PANTRANCO is guilty of breach contract of carriage and is liable for damages.
RULING
YES. Article 1755 of the Civil Code provides that , as a common carrier
PANTRANCO was duty bound to carry its passengers "safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due
regard for all the circumstances. The lower court's conclusion that "the accident was
caused by a fortuitous event” is in large measure conjectural and speculative, and was
arrived at without due regard to all the circumstances, as required by the foregoing
provision.
In Lasam vs. Smith, the Court held that an accident caused by defects in the
automobile is not a caso fortuito. The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that "the
passenger has neither the choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the
equipment and appliances in use by the carrier." When a passenger dies or is injured, the
presumption is that the common carrier is at fault or that it acted negligently (Article 1756)
unless there’s a proof on the carrier's part that it observed the "extraordinary diligence".
In the instant case, the mere fact that the bus was inspected only recently and found
to be in order would not exempt the carrier from liability unless it is shown that the particular
circumstances under which the bus would travel were also considered.
Hence, PANTRANCO is ordered to pay to plaintiffs damages for breach of contracts,
with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaints.
JAPAN AIRLINES vs. JESUS SIMANGAN
G.R. No. 170141 April 22, 2008
REYES R.T., J.:
FACTS:
In 1991, Jesus Simangan decided to donate a kidney to his ailing cousin, Loreto
Simangan, in UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Afer a series of
laboratory tests, it was proven that his blood and tissue type were well matched with
Loreto's. Thereafter, he obtained an emergency U.S. visa then purchased a round trip
plane ticket from petitioner JAL.
On the date of his flight, he went to NAIA and checked in at JAL's counter. His travel
documents were subjected to rigid immigration and security routines before he was allowed
by JAL to enter its airplane.
While inside the airplane, JAL's airline crew suspected him of carrying a falsified
travel document and imputed that he would only use the trip to the US as a pretext to stay
and work in Japan. Respondent showed again his travel documents to the stewardess.
Shortly after, he was haughtily ordered to leave the plane. Respondent protested,
explaining that he was issued a U.S. visa. His pleas were ignored. He was then constrained
to go out of the plane.
As a result, respondent filed an action for damages. JAL denied the material
allegations of the complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not JAL is guilty of breach of contract of carriage
RULING:
YES, JAL guilty of breach of contract of carriage.
Respondent was allowed by JAL to enter its airplane to fly to LA, California, U.S.A.
via Narita, Japan. Nevertheless, JAL made respondent get off the plane on his scheduled
departure and was not allowed to fly. Thus, JAL failed to comply with its obligation under
the contract of carriage. Apart from the fact that respondent's plane ticket, boarding pass,
travel authority and personal articles already passed the rigid immigration and security
routines, JAL, as a common carrier, ought to know the kind of valid travel documents
respondent carried.
As provided in Article 1755 of the New Civil Code: "A common carrier is bound to
carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances." It
bears repeating that the power to admit or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act
which cannot be interfered with even by JAL. In an action for breach of contract of carriage,
all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of such contract and its non-
performance by the carrier through the latter's failure to carry the passenger safely to his
destination. Respondent has complied with these twin requisites.

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co. G.R. No. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 Villamor, J.: Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co. G.R. No. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 Villamor, J.: Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Landingin vs. Pangasinan Transportation Co. G.R. No. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 Villamor, J.: Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LANDINGIN vs. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO.

G.R. No. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970

You might also like