6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 1/19

SECONDDIVISION

GOVERNMENTSERVICEG.R.No.170414INSURANCESYSTEM,Petitioner,versus

PACIFICAIRWAYSCORPORATION,ELYBUNGABONG,andMICHAELGALVEZ,Respondents.xxPHILIPPINEAIRLINES,INC.,G.R.No.170418ROGELIOCASIO,andRUELISAAC,Petitioners,versusPACIFICAIRWAYSCORPORATION,ELYBUNGABONGandMICHAELGALVEZ,Respondents.xxAIRTRANSPORTATIONOFFICE,G.R.No.170460DANILOALZOLA,andERNESTO*LIM,Present:Petitioners,CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,PERALTA,versusABAD,PEREZ,**andMENDOZA,JJ.

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 2/19

PACIFICAIRWAYSCORPORATION,ELYBUNGABONG,andMICHAELGALVEZ,Respondents,GOVERNMENTSERVICEPromulgated:INSURANCESYSTEM,Intervenor.August25,2010xx

DECISIONCARPIO,J.:

TheCase

Before theCourt are three consolidated petitions for review[1]

of the 28October 2004

Decision[2]

andthe15November2005Resolution[3]

oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.

CVNo.73214.The28October2004Decisionaffirmedthe27July2001Decision[4]

oftheRegionalTrialCourt(Branch112)ofPasayCity.The15November2005Resolutionmodifiedthe28October2004DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

TheAntecedentFacts

On 2 April 1996, at around 6:45 p.m., the Twin Otter aircraft of Philippine Airways

Corporation(PAC)arrivedattheManilaInternationalAirport[5]

fromElNido,Palawan.[6]

IncommandoftheaircraftwasElyB.Bungabong.[7]

WithBungabonginthecockpit

wasMichaelF.Galvezascopilot.[8]

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 3/19

Upontouchdown, theTwinOtter taxiedalongtherunwayandproceededtotheSoriano

Hangartodisembarkitspassengers.[9]

Afterthelastpassengerdisembarked,PACspilotsstartedtheengineoftheTwinOtterinordertoproceedtothePACHangarlocatedatthe

otherendoftheairport.[10]

Ataround7:18p.m.,Galvezcontactedgroundcontroltoask

forclearancetotaxitotaxiwaydelta.[11]

RogelioLim,groundtrafficcontrollerondutyatthe Air Transportation Office (ATO), issued the clearance on condition that he be

contactedagainuponreachingtaxiwaydeltaintersection.[12]

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 requestedclearancetomakearightturntofox1andtocrossrunway13inordertoproceedtofox1

bravo.[15]

ATOgrantedtherequest.[16]

Atthispoint,theTwinOtterwasstill350meters

away from runway13.[17]

Upon reaching runway13,PACspilots did notmake a full

stop at the holding point to request clearance right before crossing runway 13.[18]

Withoutsuchclearance,PACspilotsproceededtocrossrunway13.Meanwhile, thePhilippineAirlines (PAL)Boeing737,mannedbypilotsRogelioCasioandRuel Isaac,was preparing for takeoff along runway13.ThePALpilots requested

clearancetopushandstart[19]

onrunway13.ErnestoLinog,Jr.,airtrafficcontrolleron

dutyat theATOissuedtheclearance.[20]

Subsequently,at7:20and18seconds,Linog,

Jr.gavePALsBoeing737clearancetotakeoff.[21]

PilotsCasioandIsaacthenproceeded

withthetakeoffprocedure.[22]

Whilealreadyontakeoffroll,Casiocaughtaglimpseof

theTwinOtterontheleftsideoftheBoeing737abouttocrossrunway13.[23]

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 4/19

While theTwinOtterwas halfway through runway13,Galvez noticed theBoeing737

and told Bungabong that an airplane was approaching them from the right side.[24]

Bungabongthensaid,Diyoskopoandgavefullpower to theTwinOtter.[25]

ThePAL

pilotsattemptedtoabortthetakeoffbyreversingthethrustoftheaircraft.[26]

However,

theBoeing737stillcollidedwiththeTwinOtter.[27]

TheBoeing737draggedtheTwinOtterabout100metersaway.[28]

WhentheTwinOtter

stopped, PACs pilots ran away from the aircraft for fear it might explode.[29]

Whileobserving theTwinOtter fromasafedistance, theysawpassengers runningdownfrom

the Boeing 737.[30]

When PACs pilots returned to the aircraft to get their personal

belongings,theysawthattheTwinOtterwasatotalwreck.[31]

At 7:21 and 2 seconds on that fateful evening, the PAL pilots informedATOs control

tower that they had hit another aircraft, referring to the Twin Otter.[32]

Bungabong

suffered sprain on his shoulder whileGalvez had laceration on his left thumb.[33]

AnambulancebroughtthetwopilotstoMakatiMedicalCenterwheretheyweretreatedfor

seriousandslightphysicalinjuries.[34]

On7May1996,PAC,Bungabong,andGalvezfiledintheRegionalTrialCourt(Branch

112)ofPasayCityacomplaint[35]

forsumofmoneyanddamagesagainstPAL,Casio,Isaac, ATO, Lim, Linog, Jr., and ATOs traffic control supervisor, Danilo Alzola. TheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS),asinsureroftheBoeing737thatfiguredinthecollision,intervened.

TheRulingoftheTrialCourt

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 5/19

The trial court ruled that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence ofAlzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.,asATOstrafficcontrolsupervisor,groundtrafficcontroller,andairtrafficcontroller,respectively,atthetimeofthecollision.Thetrialcourtfurtherheld that thedirect causeof thecollisionwas thenegligenceofCasioand Isaac,as thepilotsoftheBoeing737thatcollidedwiththeTwinOtter.Thedecretalportionofthetrialcourtsdecisionreads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendantsPhilippine Air Lines and its pilots, Rogelio Casio and Ruel Isaac, and AirTransportation Office and its comptrollers, Danilo Alzola, Rogelio Lim and ErnestoLinog,Jr.,jointlyandseverally,topay:a) Plaintiff Pacific Airways Corporation the amount of Php15,000,000.00 and thefurtheramountofPhp100,000.00adayfromApril2,1996untilitisfullyreimbursedfor the value of its RPC1154 plane, as actual damages, and the amount ofPhp3,000,000.00,asexemplarydamages,and theamountofPhp1,000,000.00,asandforattorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigation

b)PlaintiffsElyB.Bongabong[36]

andMichaelF.Galvez,theamountofPhp5,000.00each, as actual damages the amount of Php500,000.00, as and for moral damagesPhp500,000.00asandforexemplarydamages,andtheamountofPhp50,000.00,asandforattorneysfeesc)Defendantsare,likewise,orderedtopay,jointlyandseverally,toplaintiffsthecostsofthissuit.

SOORDERED.[37]

PAL,Casio,Isaac,GSIS,ATO,Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.,allappealedthetrialcourtsDecisiontotheCourtofAppeals.

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

TheCourtofAppealsfoundthatthetrialcourtdidnotcommitanyreversibleerror.Inits28October2004decision,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedintotothedecisionofthetrialcourt,thus:

WHEREFORE,theinstantappealisherebyDISMISSED.ThedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch112,PasayCitydatedJuly27,2001isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 6/19

SOORDERED.[38]

PAL,Casio,Isaac,GSIS,ATO,Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.,filedtheirrespectivemotionsfor reconsideration. The appellate court denied for lack of merit all the motions forreconsiderationexcepttheonefiledbyLinog,Jr.

TheCourtofAppealsgaveweight to the20March2003Decision[39]

onappealof theRTC(Branch108)ofPasayCityinCriminalCaseNo.021979acquittingLinog,Jr.,whowas convicted in the original Decision together with Alzola and Lim, of recklessimprudence resulting in damage to propertywith serious and slight physical injuries inconnection with the collision. Since Alzola and Lim did not appeal, the judgment ofconvictionagainstthembecamefinal.AlzolaandLimweresentencedtoarrestomayoror

imprisonmentfortwo(2)months.[40]

TheCourtofAppealsreasonedthatsincethetrialcourtinthecriminalcasehasruledthatLinog,Jr.wasnotnegligent,thentheactfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedidnotexist.Inits15November2005Resolution,theCourtofAppealsdecreed:

WHEREFORE,thedecisionsubjectofthemotionsforreconsiderationisMODIFIEDinthatthecaseagainstdefendantappellantERNESTOLINOG,JR.isdismissed.ThedecisionisAFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.

SOORDERED.[41]

Hence,theinstantconsolidatedpetitionsforreview.InG.R.No.170418,petitionersPAL,Casio, and Isaacargue that theCourtofAppealsshould 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 duediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionofitspilots.Petitionerscontendthat theCourtofAppealsawardeddamageswithoutanyspecific supportingproofas requiredby law.PetitionersalsoclaimthattheCourtofAppealsshouldhaveawardedtheircounterclaim

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 7/19

fordamages.InG.R.No.170414,petitionerGSISpointsoutthatPACspilotsweretheonesguiltyofnegligenceastheyviolatedtheRulesoftheAir,whichprovidethatrightofwaybelongstotheaircraftontakeoffrollandtheaircraftontherightsideofanother.GSISstressesthat such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision. GSIS posits that PAC,Bungabong,andGalvezshouldbeheldsolidarilyliabletopayGSISthecostofrepairingtheinsuredaircraft.InG.R.No.170460,petitionersATO,Alzola,andLimcallourattentiontothefactthatPACwasamerelessee,nottheowneroftheTwinOtter.TheyarguethatPAC,asmerelessee,wasnot the realpartyininterest in thecomplaint seeking recovery fordamagessustained by theTwinOtter. Petitionersmaintain thatground and air traffic clearanceswere the joint responsibility of ATO and the pilotsincommand. Petitioners aver thatBungabongandGalvezwerenegligentinaskingforclearancetocrossanactiverunwaywhilestill350metersawayfromtherunway.PetitionersclaimthatPALhadtherightofwayandthatPACspilotshadthelastclearchancetopreventthecollision.

TheIssue

Thesoleissueforresolutioniswhoamongthepartiesisliablefornegligenceunderthecircumstances.

TheCourtsRuling

Thepetitionsaremeritorious.In apetition for reviewunderRule45,onlyquestionsof lawmaybe raised.This rule,however,admitsofcertainexceptionsaswhen the judgmentof theCourtofAppeals ispremised on amisapprehension of facts or theCourt ofAppeals fails to notice certain

relevantfactswhich,ifproperlyconsidered,willjustifyadifferentconclusion.[42]

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 8/19

Afterthoroughlygoingovertheevidenceonrecordinthiscase,weareunabletosustainthefindingoffactandlegalconclusionoftheCourtofAppeals.To ascertain who among the parties is liable for negligence, we must refer to theapplicablerulesgoverningthespecifictrafficmanagementofaircraftsatanairport.The

RulesoftheAir[43]

oftheAirTransportationOfficeapplytoallaircraftsregisteredinthe

Philippines.[44]

TheBoeing737andtheTwinOtterinthiscasewerebothregisteredinthePhilippines.BotharethussubjecttotheRulesoftheAir.Incaseofdangerofcollisionbetweentwoaircrafts,theRulesoftheAirstate:

2.2.4.7 Surface Movement of Aircraft. In case of danger of collision between twoaircraftstaxiingonthemaneuveringareaofanaerodrome,thefollowingshallapply:a)Whentwoaircraftsareapproachingheadon,orapproximatelyso,eachshallstoporwherepracticable,alteritscoursetotherightsoastokeepwellclear.b)Whentwoaircraftsareonaconvergingcourse,theonewhichhastheotheron

itsrightshallgiveway.[45]

(Emphasissupplied)Inthiscase,however,theBoeing737andtheTwinOtterwerenotbothtaxiingatthetimeofthecollision.OnlytheTwinOtterwastaxiing.TheBoeing737wasalreadyontakeoffroll.TheRulesoftheAirprovide:

2.2.4.6TakingOff.Anaircrafttaxiingonthemaneuveringareaofanaerodromeshall

givewaytoaircrafttakingofforabouttotakeoff.[46]

(Emphasissupplied)

Therefore,PALsaircrafthadtherightofwayatthetimeofcollision,notsimplybecauseitwasontherightsideofPACsaircraft,butmoresignificantly,becauseitwastakingofforabouttotakeoff.

PACsPilotsFor disregarding PALs right of way, PACs pilots were grossly negligent. Grossnegligenceisonethatischaracterizedbythewantofevenslightcare,actingoromittingto act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 9/19

intentionallywithaconsciousindifferencetoconsequencesinsofarasotherpersonsmay

beaffected.[47]

WefindithardtobelievethatPACspilotsdidnotseetheBoeing737whentheylookedtotheleftandtotherightbeforeapproachingtherunway.ItwasaclearsummereveninginAprilandtheBoeing737,only200metersaway,haditsinboardlights,outboardlights,

taxi lights, and logo lights on before and during the actual takeoff roll.[48]

The onlyplausibleexplanationwhyPACspilotsdidnotseetheBoeing737wasthattheydidnotreallylooktotheleftandtotherightbeforecrossingtheactiverunway.Records show that PACs pilots, while still 350 meters away, prematurely requested

clearance tocross theactive runway.[49]

ATOpoints out thatPACspilots shouldhavemadeafullstopattheholdingpointtoaskforupdatedclearancerightbeforecrossingthe

active runway.[50]

Had PACs pilots done so, ATOwould by then be in a position todetermineiftherewasanaircraftonatakeoffrollattherunway.Thecollisionwouldnothavehappened.

ATO,Alzola,Lim,andLinog,Jr.TheRulesofAirControlgovernairplane trafficmanagement andclearanceat the thenManilaInternationalAirport.Itcontainsseveralprovisionsindicatingthatairplanetrafficmanagement and clearance are not the sole responsibility of ATO and its trafficcontrollers, butof thepilotsincommandof aircrafts aswell.TheRulesofAirControlstate:

1.3Thepilotincommandofanaircraftshall,whethermanipulatingthecontrolsornot,beresponsiblefortheoperationoftheaircraftinaccordancewiththerulesoftheair,exceptthathemaydepartfromtheserulesincircumstancesthatrendersuchdepartureabsolutelynecessaryintheinterestofsafety.(Emphasissupplied)1.5 The pilotincommand of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the

dispositionoftheaircraftwhileheisincommand.[51]

(Emphasissupplied)3.1Clearances are based solely on expediting and separating aircraft and do notconstituteauthority toviolateanyapplicableregulations forpromotingsafetyof

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 10/19

flightoperationsorforanyotherpurpose.(Emphasissupplied)xxxxIf an air traffic control clearance is not suitable to the pilotincommand of an

aircraft, hemay request, and, if practicable, obtain an amended clearance.[52]

(Emphasissupplied)10.1.5 Clearances issued by controllers relate to traffic and aerodromeconditions only and do not relieve a pilot of any responsibility whatsoever in

connection with a possible violation of applicable rules and regulations.[53]

(Emphasissupplied)

Therefore,evenifATOgavebothPALspilotsandPACspilotsclearancetotakeoffandclearance tocrossrunway13, respectively, it remained theprimaryresponsibilityof thepilotsincommandtoseetoitthattherespectiveclearancesgivenweresuitable.Sincethepilotsincommand have the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft, theycannot,incaseacollisionoccurs,passtheblametoATOforissuingclearancesthatturnouttobeunsuitable.Theclearance to cross runway13,premature as itwas,wasnot anabsolute license forPACspilotstorecklesslymaneuvertheTwinOtteracrossanactiverunway.PACspilotsshould have stopped first at the holding point to ask for clearance to cross the activerunway.Itwaswrongforthemtohavereliedonaprematurelyrequestedclearancewhichwas issuedwhile theywere still 350meters away.Their defense, that it did notmatterwhethertheclearancewasprematureornotaslongastheclearancewasactuallygranted,[54]

only reveals their poor judgment andgross negligence in the performanceof theirduties.Ontheotherhand,evidenceonrecordshowsthattheairtrafficcontrollerproperlyissuedtheclearancetotakeofftotheBoeing737.Nothingonrecordindicatesanyirregularityinthe issuance of the clearance. In fact, the trial court, in the criminal case for recklessimprudence resulting in damage to propertywith serious and slight physical injuries inconnectionwiththecollision,ruledthatairtrafficcontrollerLinog,Jr.wasnotnegligent.TheCourtofAppeals, inits15November2005Resolution,absolvedLinog,Jr.ofcivilliabilityfordamagesbasedonhisacquittalinthecriminalcase.

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 11/19

While Alzola and Lim, as found by the trial court in the criminal case for recklessimprudence, may have been negligent in the performance of their functions, such

negligence is only contributory.[55]

Their contributory negligence arises from theirgrantingtheprematurerequestofPACspilotsforclearancetocrossrunway13whiletheTwinOtterwasstill350metersawayfromrunway13.However,asexplainedearlier,thegranting of their premature request for clearance did not relieve PACs pilots fromcomplyingwiththeRulesoftheAir.

PALsPilotsRecordsshowthatPALspilotstimelyrequestedclearancetotakeoff.Linog,Jr.,ATOsair

traffic controller, duly issued the clearance to takeoff.[56]

Under theRules of theAir,

PALs aircraft being on takeoff roll undisputedly had the right ofway.[57]Further, theRulesofAirControlprovide:

2.2.4.1Theaircraftthathastherightofwayshallmaintainitsheadingandspeed,xx

x.[58]

(Emphasissupplied)

Thus,evenifCasionoticedfromthecornerofhiseyeasmallairplanetaxiingontheleft

side and approaching halfway of fox 1,[59]

itwas fairly reasonable for PALs pilots toassume that they may proceed with the takeoff because the taxiing aircraft wouldnaturallyrespecttheirrightofwayandnotventuretocrosstheactiverunwaywhiletheBoeing737wasontakeoffroll.

Applicable by analogy is the case ofSantos v.BLTB,[60]

where theCourt applied theprinciplethatamotoristwhoisproperlyproceedingonhisownsideofthehighway,evenafterheseesanapproachingmotoristcomingtowardhimonthewrongside,isgenerallyentitledtoassumethattheothermotoristwillreturntohisproperlaneoftraffic.

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 12/19

ProximateCauseAfterassiduouslystudyingtherecordsofthiscaseandcarefullyweighingtheargumentsoftheparties,weareconvincedthattheimmediateandproximatecaseofthecollisionisthegrossnegligenceofPACspilots.Proximatecauseisdefinedasthatcause,which,innaturalandcontinuoussequence,unbrokenbyanyefficient interveningcause,produces

theinjury,andwithoutwhichtheresultwouldnothaveoccurred.[61]

Inthiscase,thefactthat PACs pilots disregarded PALs right ofway and did not ask for updated clearancerightbeforecrossinganactiverunwaywastheproximatecauseofthecollision.Wereitnot for such gross negligence on the part of PACs pilots, the collisionwould not havehappened.The Civil Code provides that when a plaintiffs own negligence is the immediate andproximatecauseofhisinjury,hecannotrecoverdamages.

Art.2179.When theplaintiffsownnegligencewas the immediateandproximatecause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was onlycontributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendantslackofduecare, theplaintiffmay recoverdamages,but thecourts shallmitigate thedamagestobeawarded.(Emphasissupplied)

Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence,[62]

PAC and its pilots, whose own grossnegligencewas the immediateandproximatecauseof theirown injuries,mustbear thecostofsuch injuries.Theycannotrecoverdamages.CivilCaseNo.960565forsumofmoney 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 legalbasis.

PALsCounterclaims

We find supported by law and evidence on record PALs counterclaim for actual or

compensatorydamagesbutonlyintheamountofUS$548,819.93[63]

representingleasecharges during the period the Boeing 737 was not flying. The said amount cannot beclaimed against the insurance policy covering the Boeing 737. In this connection, theCivilCodeprovides:

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 13/19

Art. 2207. If theplaintiffs propertyhas been insured, andhehas received indemnityfromtheinsurancecompanyfortheinjuryorlossarisingoutofthewrongorbreachofcontractcomplainedof,theinsurancecompanyshallbesubrogatedtotherightsoftheinsured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If theamountpaidbytheinsurancecompanydoesnotfullycovertheinjuryorloss,theaggrievedpartyshallbeentitledtorecoverthedeficiencyfromthepersoncausingthelossorinjury.(Emphasissupplied)

Underthelaw,GSIS,asinsurersubrogeeofPALsrighttoclaimactualorcompensatorydamages in connection with the repair of the damaged Boeing 737, is entitled toreimbursementfortheamountitadvanced.GSISclaimsreimbursementfortheamountof

US$2,775,366.84.[64]

In support of its claim, GSIS presented statements of account,

checkvouchers,andinvoices[65]

provingpaymentfortherepairoftheBoeing737inthetotal amount of US$2,775,366.84. We find the claim fully supported by evidence onrecordandthusweresolvetograntthesame.

WithregardtoPALsothercounterclaims,settledistherulethattheawardofmoralandexemplary damages as well as attorneys fees is discretionary based on the facts andcircumstancesofeachcase.Theactual lossessustainedbytheaggrievedpartiesandthe

gravity of the injuries must be considered in arriving at reasonable levels.[66]

Understandably,CasioandIsaacsufferedsleeplessnightsandweretemporarilyunabletowork after the collision.They are thus entitled tomoral damages aswell as exemplary

damagesconsideringthatPACspilotsactedwithgrossnegligence.[67]

Attorneysfeesare

generally not recoverable except when exemplary damages are awarded[68]

as in thiscase.WethusdeemtheamountsofP100,000inmoraldamages,P100,000inexemplarydamages,andP50,000inattorneysfeestobeinaccordancewithprevailingjurisprudenceandappropriategiventhecircumstances.WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitions. We SET ASIDE the 28 October 2004Decisionandthe15November2005ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo. 73214 affirming in toto the 27 July 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court(Branch 112) of PasayCity.However,weSUSTAIN the dismissal of the case against

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 14/19

ErnestoLinog,Jr.Civil Case No. 960565 for sum of money and damages, filed by Pacific AirwaysCorporation(PAC),ElyB.Bungabong,andMichaelF.Galvez,isDISMISSEDforlackoflegalbasis.PacificAirwaysCorporation,ElyB.Bungabong,andMichaelF.GalvezareORDEREDtosolidarilypay:

(1) Philippine Airlines, Inc. actual or compensatory damages in the amount ofUS$548,819.93

(2) Rogelio Casio and Ruel Isaac individually moral damages in the amount ofP100,000,exemplarydamagesintheamountofP100,000,andattorneysfeesintheamountofP50,000and

(3)theGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem,asinsurersubrogeeofPhilippineAirlines,actualorcompensatorydamagesintheamountofUS$2,775,366.84.

Nopronouncementastocosts.SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 15/19

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA

AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABADJOSEPORTUGALPEREZ

AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

JOSEC.MENDOZA

AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore

thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO

AssociateJustice

Chairperson

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 16/19

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant toSection 13,ArticleVIII of theConstitution, and theDivision 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.

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 17/19

[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]TSN,12October1998,p.32.

[14]TSN,6October1997,p.12.

[15]Id.

[16]TSN,12October1998,p.33.

[17]TSN,7January1999,p.15.

[18]Records,p.776.

[19]TSN,12October1998,p.36.

Q:Whatisthispushandstartclearance?A:Pushandstartclearance,whentheaircraft isalreadyreadythepassengertheyhavetobepushedto thestarting

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]

TSN,6October1997,p.17.[29]

Id.[30]

Id.at18.[31]

Id.at19.[32]

TSN,12October1998,p.38.[33]

TSN,6October1997,pp.1920.[34]

Id.at20.[35]

Records,pp.111.[36]

Seenote7.

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 18/19

[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]TSN,12October1998,pp.3637.

[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,cannotberecovered,except:

6/28/2015 G.R.No.170414

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/170414.htm 19/19

(1)Whenexemplarydamagesareawardedxxxx