1. GSIS vs Pacific Airways Corporation
Facts:
On 2 April 1996, the Twin Otter aircraft of Philippine Airways Corporation (PAC) arrived at the Manila
International Airport from El Nido, Palawan. Upon touchdown, the Twin Otter taxied along the runway
and proceeded to the Soriano Hangar to disembark its passengers. After the last passenger
disembarked, PACs pilots started the engine of the Twin Otter in order to proceed to the PAC Hangar
located at the other end of the airport.
The Twin Otter was still 350 meters 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. Without such
clearance, PACs pilots proceeded to cross runway 13.
Meanwhile, the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Boeing 737, was preparing for take-off along runway 13. The
PAL pilots requested clearance to push and start on runway 13 and the ATO issued the clearance. While
already on take-off roll, one of the pilot caught a glimpse of the Twin Otter on the left side of the Boeing
737 about to cross runway 13.The PAL pilots attempted to abort the take-off by reversing the thrust of
the aircraft. However, the Boeing 737 still collided with the Twin Otter.
Issue: Whether or not among the parties is liable for negligence.
Held:
To ascertain who among the parties is liable for negligence, the Rules of the Air of the Air Transportation
Office apply to all aircraft registered in the Philippines.
ATO for issuing clearances that turn out to be unsuitable, cannot be blame, because the pilots-in-
command have the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft. It remained the primary
responsibility of the pilots-in-command to see to it that the respective clearances given were suitable.
PALs aircraft had the right of way at the time of collision, because under the Rules of the Air, being on
take-off roll undisputedly had the right of way. The fact that PACs pilots disregarded PALs right of way
and did not ask for updated clearance right before crossing an active runway was the proximate cause of
the collision. Were it not for such gross negligence on the part of PACs pilots, the collision would not
have happened.
Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in
a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
