it should have explained to ALA the process involved for the payment of AL s claim. (MIAA v. Ala Industries Corp., G.R. No. 147349, Feb. 13, 2004) Q: JAL cancelled all its flight to Manila due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and NAIA's indefinite closure. The passengers were then forced to pay for their accommodations and meal expenses from their personal funds. Thus, they filed an action for damages against JAL. Can JAL avoid liability by invoking that delays were caused by force majeure ? A: Yes. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption prevented JAL from proceeding to Manila on schedule. Such event can be considered as "force majeure" since the delayed arrival in Manila was not imputable to JAL. When JAL was prevented from resuming its flight to Manila due to the effects of Mt. Pinatubo eruption, whatever losses or damages in the form of hotel and meal expenses the stranded passengers incurred, cannot be charged to JAL. Indeed, in the absence of bad faith or negligence, JAL cannot be liable for the amenities of its stranded passengers by reason of a fortuitous event. (Japan Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 118664, Aug. 7, 1998) . Q: What are the effects of fortuitous event? A: 1. On determinate obligation the obligation is extinguished 2. On generic obligation the obligation is not extinguished ( genus nun quam peruit genus never perishes) Q: AB Corp. entered into a contract with XY Corp. whereby the former agreed to construct the research and laboratory facilities of the latter. Under the terms of the contract, AB Corp. agreed to complete the facility in 18 months, at the total contract price of P10 million. XY Corp. paid 50% of the total contract price, the balance to be paid upon completion of the work. The work started immediately, but AB Corp. later experienced work slippage because of labor unrest in his company. AB Corp. s employees claimed that they are not being paid on time; hence, the work slowdown. As of the 17 th month, work was only 45% completed. AB Corp. asked for extension of time, claiming that its labor problems is a case of fortuitous event, but this was denied by XY Corp. When it became certain that the construction could not be finished on time, XY Corp. sent written notice cancelling the contract and requiring AB Corp. to immediately vacate the premises. Can the labor unrest be considered a fortuitous event? A: Labor unrest is not a fortuitous event that will excuse AB Corp. from complying with its obligation of constructing the research and laboratory facilities of XY Corp. The labor unrest, which may even be attributed in large part to AB Corp. itself, is not the direct cause of non compliance by AB Corp. It is independent of its obligation. It is similar to the failure of a DBP borrower to pay her loan just because her plantation suffered losses due to the cadang cadang disease. It does not excuse compliance with the obligation (DBP v. Vda. De Moll).