Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Co. 59 Phil.

758
Facts: Lilius accompanied by his wife and daughter was driving his car for Pagsa
njan, Laguna. At about 7 to 8 meters from the railroad crossing at Dayap he saw
a truck parked on the left side of the road with several people who have alighte
d from the truck walking on the opposite side.
He slowed down to about 12 miles an hour and sounded his horn for the people to
get out of the way. While his attention was thus occupied, he heard two short wh
istles and immediately thereafter his car was hit by a passing train dragging it
at a distance of about 10 meters. The train was not able to stop until about 70
meters from the crossing. The approach of the train could not be noted because
there were houses, shrubs and trees along the road. Lilius, his wife and daughte
r were injured and this case was instituted to recover damages.
Held: Upon examination of the oral as well as of the documentary evidence which t
he parties presented at the trial in support of their respective contentions, an
d after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, this court
is of the opinion that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the def
endant-appellant company, for not having had on the occasion any semaphore at th
e crossing at Dayap to serve as a warning to passers-by of its existence in orde
r that they might take the necessary precautions before crossing the railroad; a
nd, on the part of its employees - the flagman and switchman, for not having rem
ained at their posts at the crossing in question to warn passers-by of the appro
aching train; the station master, for failure to send the said flagman and switc
hman to their posts on time; and the engineer, for not having taken the necessar
y precautions to avoid an accident, in view of the absence of said flagman and s
witchman, by slackening his speed and continuously ringing the bell and blowing
the whistle before arriving at the crossing.
Although it is probable that the defendant-appellant entity employed the diligen
ce of a good father of a family in selecting its aforesaid employees, however, i
t did not employ such diligence in supervising their work and the discharge of t
heir duties because, otherwise, it would have had a semaphore or sign at the cro
ssing and, on previous occasions as well as on the night in question, the flagma
n and switchman would have always been at their posts at the crossing upon the a
rrival of a train. The diligence of a good father of a family, which the law req
uires in order to avoid damage, is not confined to the careful and prudent selec
tion of subordinates or employees but includes inspection of their work and supe
rvision of the discharge of their duties.
x x x x x
In view of the foregoing considerations, this court is of the opinion that the de
fendant Manila Railroad Company alone is liable for the accident by reason of it
s own negligence and that of its employees, for not having employed the diligenc
e of a good father of a family in the supervision of the said employees in the d
ischarge of their duties.