CHINA AIR LINES, LTD., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE PAGSIBIGAN, PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. and ROBERTO ESPIRITU, respondents. G.R. No. 45985 May 18, 1990 FACTS: Jose Pagsibagan, General Manager of Rentokil (Phil.) Inc. purchased an airline ticket for Manila-TaipeiHong Kong-Manila with Philippine Airlines which at that time was a sales and ticketing agent of China Air Lines. His plane ticket indicated that he is booked on CAL CI Flight No. 812 to depart from Manila for Taipei on June 10, 1968 at 17:20 hours (5:20 p.m.) as issued by PAL, through its ticketing clerk defendant Roberto Espiritu. One hour before his flight, Pagsibagan was informed that Flight No. 812 bound to Taipei had already left at 10:20. PAL employees made appropriate arrangements for the former to take the next flight to Taipei the following day, to which he arrived around noontime. Jose Pagsibagan filed a complaint for damages, alleging further the negligence of Roberto Espiritu. PAL on its defense alleges that its ticketing office through Roberto Espiritu asked for confirmation from CAL before issuing the ticket to Mr. Pagsibagan, which CAL confirmed. Defendant China Air Lines, for its part, disclaims liability for the negligence and incompetence of the employees of PAL. Moreover, CAL avers that it had properly notified PAL of the flight schedule. Trial Court ruled that PAL and its employee shall indemnify Pagsibagan. However, the complaint is dismissed with respect to CAL. ISSUE: Whether or not CAL shall be rendered liable. HELD: NO. aquiliana iana. As There is indeed There indeed no bas basis is whatsoev whatsoever er to hol hold d CA CAL L lia liable ble on a quasi-delict or culpa aquil hereinbefore stated, the court a quo absolved CAL of any liability for fault or negligence. This finding was shared share d by respondent court when it concl concluded uded that defendant CAL did not contribute contribute to the negligence negligence committed by therein defendants-appellants PAL and Roberto Espiritu.
Respondent Pagsibigan insists that CAL was barred from proving that it observed due diligence in the select sel ection ion and sup superv ervisi ision on of its emp employ loyees ees.. Thi This s arg argume ument nt is obv obviou iously sly mis mispla placed ced.. CA CAL L is not the 11 employer of PAL or Espiritu. In Duavit vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al ., we have stressed the need of first establishing the existence of an employer-employee relationship before an employer may be vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of the employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
