Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

JOSE CANGCO vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

G.R. No. L-12191, October 14, 1918


Fisher, J.:

DOCTRINE:
Manresa clearly points out the difference between "culpa, substantive and
independent, which of itself constitutes the source of an obligation between persons
not formerly connected by any legal tie" and culpa considered as an accident in the
performance of an obligation already existing . . . ."

FACTS:
Jose Cangco was an employee of Manila Railroad Company as clerk. He lived in San
Mateo which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company. He used to travel
by trade to the office located in Manila for free. On January 21, 1915, about 7 to 8 o’clock on
a dark night, on his way home by rail and when the train drew up to the station in San
Mateo, he rose from his seat, making his exit through the door. When he stepped off from
the train, one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons causing him to
slip off from under him and he fell violently on the platform. He rolled and was drawn
under the moving car. He was badly crushed and lacerated. He was hospitalized which
resulted to amputation of his hand. He filed the civil suit for damages against defendant in
CFI of Manila founding his action upon the negligence of the employees of defendant in
placing the watermelons upon the platform and in leaving them so placed as to be a
menace to the security of passengers alighting from the train. The trial court after having
found negligence on the part of defendant, adjudged saying that plaintiff failed to use due
caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from recovering. Hence,
this appeal.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not defendant Manila Railroad Company is liable for damages.

RULING:
YES. Defendant Manila Railroad Company is liable for damages. It cannot be doubted
that the employees of defendant were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the
platform in the manner stated. It necessarily follows that the defendant company is liable for
the damage thereby occasioned unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff’s own contributory
negligence. It is to note that the foundation of the legal liability is the contract of carriage.
However Art. 1903 relates only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa contractual, as the Court
cleared on the case of Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf. It is not accurate to say that proof of diligence
and care in the selection and control of the servant relieves the master from liability fro the
latter’s act. The fundamental distinction between obligation of this character and those which
arise from contract, rest upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligations it is the
wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in
contractual relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty
assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation. When the source of
obligation upon which plaintiff’s cause of action depends is a negligent act or omission, the
burden of proof rest upon the plaintiff to prove negligence. On the other hand, in contractual
undertaking, proof of the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to
warrant recovery. The negligence of employee cannot be invoked to relieve the employer from
liability as it will make juridical persons completely immune from damages arising from
breach of their contracts. Defendant was therefore liable for the injury suffered by plaintiff,
whether the breach of the duty were to be regarded as constituting culpa aquiliana or
contractual. As Manresa discussed, whether negligence occurs as an incident in the course of
the performance of a contractual undertaking or is itself the source of an extra-contractual
obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always an act or omission
productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of the defendant. The
contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry
him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains. Contributory
negligence on the part of petitioner as invoked by defendant is untenable. In determining the
question of contributory negligence in performing such act- that is to say, whether the
passenger acted prudently or recklessly- age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are
circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. It is
to be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to plaintiff as it was his daily routine. Our
conclusion is there is slightly underway characterized by imprudence and therefore was not
guilty of contributory negligence.

Вам также может понравиться