M.H.

Rakes vs The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company

7 Phil. 359 Civil Law Torts and Damages Kinds of Fault
M.H. Rakes was a black man working as a laborer for Atlantic Gulf in the early
1900s. One day, they were working in the companys yard and they were
transporting heavy rails using two cars (karitons?); each car carrying the opposite
ends of the rails. The cars were pulled by rope from the front and other workers are
pushing the cars from behind. There were no side guards installed on the sides of
the cars but the rails were secured by ropes. The track where the cars move were
also weakened by a previous typhoon. It was alleged that Atlantics foreman was
notified of said damage in the tracks but the same were left unrepaired. While the
cars were being moved and when it reached the depressed portion of the track, and
while Rakes was beside one of the cars, the ropes gave in and the rails slipped
thereby crushing his leg and causing it to be amputated. Rakes sued Atlantic Gulf
and he won; he was awarded 5,000 pesos for damages ($2,500).
Atlantic assailed the decision of the lower court alleging that they specifically
ordered their workers to be walking only before or after the cars and not on the side
of the cars because the cars have no side guards to protect them in case the rails
would slip. Atlantic also alleged that Rakes should be suing the foreman as it was
him who neglected to have the tracks repaired; that Rakes himself was negligent for
having known of the depression on the track yet he continued to work.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atlantic is civilly liable.
HELD: Yes. Rakes as per the evidence could not have known of the damage in the
track as it was another employee who swore he notified the foreman about said
damage. Further, his lack of caution in continuing to work is not of a gross nature as
to constitute negligence on his part. On the other hand though, Rakes contributory
negligence can be inferred from the fact that he was on the side of the cars when in
fact there were orders from the company barring workers from standing near the
side of the cars. His disobedient to this order does not bar his recovery of damages
though; the Supreme Court instead reduced the award of damages from 5,000
pesos to 2,500 pesos.
In this case, the SC also elucidated the two kinds of culpa which are:
1.

Culpa as substantive and independent, which on account of its origin arises in

an obligation between two persons not formerly bound by any other obligation; may
be also considered as a real source of an independent obligation (extra-contractual
or culpa aquiliana).

2.

Culpa as an incident in the performance of an obligation which cannot be

presumed to exist without the other, and which increases the liability arising from
the already existing obligation (contractual or culpa contractual).