Scribd
Upload
101 views1 page

China Air Lines Vs CA, PAL Vs CA

PAL, as a ticketing agent for CAL, issued a plane ticket to Jose Pagsibigan for a Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong flight operated by CAL. However, when Pagsibigan arrived at the airport for his scheduled flight, he was informed that the plane had left earlier that day. Pagsibigan sued PAL and CAL. The court found PAL and its employee liable for negligence under the Civil Code. The court also found CAL liable for breach of contract due to the negligence of its agents, PAL and the employee, in incorrectly listing the flight departure time. While an agent is generally not liable for actions of a sub-agent, there are exceptions when the agent's own employee commits

Uploaded by

William Christian Dela Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views1 page

China Air Lines Vs CA, PAL Vs CA

PAL, as a ticketing agent for CAL, issued a plane ticket to Jose Pagsibigan for a Manila-Taipei-Hong Kong flight operated by CAL. However, when Pagsibigan arrived at the airport for his scheduled flight, he was informed that the plane had left earlier that day. Pagsibigan sued PAL and CAL. The court found PAL and its employee liable for negligence under the Civil Code. The court also found CAL liable for breach of contract due to the negligence of its agents, PAL and the employee, in incorrectly listing the flight departure time. While an agent is generally not liable for actions of a sub-agent, there are exceptions when the agent's own employee commits

Uploaded by

William Christian Dela Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

(2) China Air Lines vs CA, PAL vs CA Issue:

Facts: Is PAL liable as an agent?

On June 4, 1968, Jose E. Pagsibigan, then Vice-President Held:


and General Manager of Rentokil (Phils.) Inc., a local
firm dealing in insecticides, pesticides and related Yes.
services appurtenant thereto, purchased a plane ticket
for a Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight from the As a general proposition, an agent who duly acts as such
Transaire Travel Agency. The said agency, through its is not personally liable to third persons. However, there
Cecille Baron, contacted the Manila Hotel branch of are admitted exceptions, as in this case where the agent
defendant Philippine Air Lines which at that time was a is being sued for damages arising from a tort committed
sales and ticketing agent of defendant China Air lines. by his employee.
PAL, through its ticketing clerk defendant Roberto
Espiritu, cut and issued PAL Ticket No. 01 7991 for a Espiritu is primarily liable to respondent Pagsibigan
Manila-Taipei-Hongkong-Manila flight. According to the under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. For the failure of
plane ticket, the plaintiff was booked on CAL CI Flight PAL to rebut the legal presumption of negligence in the
No. 812 to depart from Manila for Taipei on June 10, selection and supervision of its employee, it is also
1968 at 17:20 hours (5:20 p.m.). On June 10, 1968, one primarily liable under Article 2180 of the same code.
hour before the scheduled time of the flight as stated in
his ticket, the plaintiff arrived at the airport to check in Under the aforesaid provision, all that is required is that
for CI Flight No. 812. Upon arriving at the airport, the the employee, by his negligence, committed a quasi-
plaintiff was informed that the plane he was supposed delict which caused damage to another, and this
to take for Taipei had left at 10:20 in the morning of suffices to hold the employer primarily and solidarity
that day. The PAL employees at the airport made responsible for the tortious act of the employee. PAL,
appropriate arrangements for the plaintiff to take PAL's however, can demand from Espiritu reimbursement of
flight to Taipei the following day, June 11, 1968. The the amount which it will have to pay the offended
plaintiff took said flight and arrived in Taipei around party's claim.
noontime of the said date. After a series of negotiations
among the plaintiff, PAL and CAL failed to reach an Other teachings:
amicable settlement, the plaintiff instituted this action
in the Court of First Instance of Rizal on September 22, 1. Equity
1969. 2. Estoppel

Petitioner China Air Lines, Ltd. (CAL) argued that a


principal cannot be held liable, much less solidarily, for
the negligence of the sub-agent, where the former
never participated in, ratified or authorized the latter's
act or omission.

Petitioners Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) and Roberto


Espiritu argued that the respondent Court of Appeals
erred in not holding that respondent China Air Lines,
Ltd., being the principal, is solely liable to respondent
Pagsibigan.

In G.R. No. L-45985, respondent Pagsibigan contends,


by way of refutation, that CAL's liability is based on
breach of contract of transportation which was the
proximate result of the negligence and/or error
committed by PAL and Espiritu; that even assuming that
CAL has no share in the negligence of PAL and Espiritu,
the liability of CAL does not cease upon proof that it
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its employees.

On the other hand, in G.R. No. L-46036, respondent


Pagsibigan claims that PAL is liable under Article 1909 of
the said code which holds an agent responsible not only
for fraud but also for negligence which shall be judged
with more or less rigor by the courts, according to
whether the agency was or was not for a compensation.

You might also like