MANUEL DE GUIA, plaintiff vs.

THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT considered as a debtor in good faith due to its exercise of due diligence (CC Art.
COMPANY, defendant & appellant [1920]
Facts:
Sept. 4, 1915, 8 p.m.
 de Guia, a physician & resident of Caloocan boarded a street-car (parang train ata
‘to…) in Caloocan. He boarded a car at the end of the line.
 30 meters from the starting point: car entered a switch, de Guia remained at the
back of the platform holding the handle of the right hand door
 Upon coming out of the switch, small wheels of rear truck left the track eventually
shattering a concrete post at the left of the track. Defendant company claims it was
caused by a stone somewhat larger than a goose egg lodged accidentally between
the rails.
 As the car stopped, de Guia was thrown against the door w/some violence w/c
resulted to some bruises and probably some internal injuries.
 De Guia claims that he became unconscious due to the impact & he was taken to his
house. Different physicians who checked on him had different testimonies. One
claimed that de Guia was walking while one said that he spit up blood due to the
bruises on his side. Signs of physical & nervous derangement were also observed.
However, defendant presented some experts who testified that de Guia’s injuries
were trivial & simulated.
De Guia filed a suit for damages wanting to claim the following:
1. compensation for money lost due to his inability to properly attend to his
professional labors for 3 mos & his practice was suspended during that time
2. P3,900.00 w/c he should have earned P3,900.00 as a district health officer in
Occidental Negros where he was supposed to serve for 2 years earning P1,600.00
per annum. He even added P350.00 as earnings from possible outside practice.
3. P40,000.00 - P10k for his medical treatment and P30k for injuries w/c he claim
would incapacitate him for exercise of medical profession in the future. He claimed to
have numerous diseases.
*Breakdown for P10k medical expenses: P350 to Dr. Montes (doctor who first saw de
Guia) plus payment to 3 other physicians.
1107). Thus, defendant’s liability is limited to damages that might be directly caused
by the physical injuries inflicted & w/c were in fact a necessary result of those
injuries.
3. WON lower court erred in admitting as primary evidence the written
statements of 4 physicians who examined de Guia. – YES.
Physicians merely identified their signatures. These cannot be classified as primary
evidence since they’re of a hearsay nature. Physicians should have been asked to testify
in court. Their statements cannot be used considering that there had been no
failure/exhaustion of memory.
4. Damages claimed by de Guia:
 P900.00 award for loss of professional earnings sustained.
 P3,900.00 (health officer’s salary) denied since it’s way too speculative.
 Damages for supposed incapacitation denied. Court has reason to believe that de
Guia wants to profit from the situation thus his promotion of the litigation. He made
use of his medical knowledge coupled w/the help of his professional associates to
make it appear that he has a strong case.
 Medical expenses: Limited to expenditures as were reasonably suited to the case.
Defendant is only liable for the expenses incurred during the first check-up w/c
amounts to P350. However, only P200 was paid by plaintiff thus, that is the only
amount w/c the defendant company is obliged to pay. Obligation WRT other
physicians cannot be subj to recovery since:
a. there’s no proof that these physicians charged for those services. They seem to
be gratuitous services. Physician’s testimonies re their rates do not mean that
de Guia did actually pay them.
b. Court believes that de Guia employed many physicians to make sure of his
success in this litigation rather than to actually cure him.
Holding: Modified. de Guia entitled to P1,100.00 w/legal interest from Nov. 8, 1916.

RTC: motorman negligent in maintaining a very rapid speed. P900.00 for loss of
professional earnings. P3,900.00 for supposed salary as a district health officer in
Occidental Negros. Total award amounts to P6,100.00

Issues & Ratio:

1. WON the motorman/car operator was negligent - YES
 Derailment is actually a fortuitous event as determined by cause. But operator’s
negligence cannot be denied. He was moving at point four speed (about 5-6 miles
per hour) but some witnesses observed that the train was moving at a higher rate
since the car was behind schedule. Another consideration would be the fact that the
car was practically empty.
 Main basis for imputing negligence: not so much because of the excessive speed but
the fact that the car was allowed to run a relatively long distance considering that
the front wheels of the rear truck were derailed. An experienced & attentive
motorman should have discovered that something was wrong & would have stopped.
2. WON the defendant company is liable - YES
 Liable for the damage resulting to de Guia due to the negligence. There was a
contractual relationship bet him & the company. Company was bound to convey &
deliver him safely & securely w/the degree of care required by law & custom (CC Art.
1258).
 Defense of exercise of due care in selection & instruction of operator (CC Art. 1903)
is immaterial because such is only applicable in negligence w/o contractual relation.
 However, the Court can moderate the company’s liability according to the
circumstances of the case (CC Art. 1103) especially since the company can be