Article 1162 - Jose Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

Jose Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.
38 Phil 768[1918]
FACTS:
● On January 20, 1915, at around 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night (the station was
dimly lit), Jose Cangco, an employee of the Manila Railroad Company, was on
his way home aboard a train of the railroad company.
● Upon arriving at the stop, Jose arose from his seat, made his exit through the
door, and took his position upon the steps of the coach, seizing the upright guard
rail with his right hand for support.
● As the train slowed down another passenger, named Emilio Zuñiga, also an
employee of the railroad company, got off the same car, alighting safely at the
point where the platform began to rise from the level of the ground.
● When the train had proceeded a little farther Jose stepped off also, but one or
both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons piled up on the
platform with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently
on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under
the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It had to
be amputated and cost Jose P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees
and for other expenses in connection with the process of his treatment.
● On August 31, 1915, Jose instituted a proceeding in the Court of First Instance of
Manila to recover damages from the railroad company, arguing that the
company’s agents and employees were negligent in placing the sacks of
melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to
the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains.
● The trial court ruled in favor of the railroad company, holding that while there was
indeed negligence on the part of the employees of the railroad company in
placing the the sack of watermelons on the platform, nevertheless Jose himself
had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore
precluded from recovering.
● Hence, this appeal by Jose to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
● Whether or not Jose may be able to recover compensation from the Manila
Railroad Company owing to its negligence that caused the damage done to
Jose?
RULING:
● The Supreme Court ruled REVERSING the decision of the trial court, and
ORDERING Manila Railroad Company to compensate Jose the sum of
P3,290.25, and for the costs of both instances.
● The SC held that it can not be doubted that the employees of the railroad
company were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the platform; that their
presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train; and that they
constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by Jose. It
necessarily follows that the company is liable for the damage occasioned unless
recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence.
● The SC held that the foundation of the legal liability of the company is the
contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond for the damage caused
to Jose arises from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of the
company to exercise due care in its performance.
● The SC that the laws applicable are Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code
which deals with extra-contractual obligations or obligations between persons not
formally connected by any legal tie. The SC explained that as to the negligence
of the employees of the company, when an injury is caused by the negligence of
such employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the employer either in selection of the servant or
employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both. This may
be rebutted if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection
and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. It is
necessary that there shall have been some negligence attributable to the
employer personally, and not based upon mere presumptions of the employer's
negligence in their selection or control. There must be proof disclosed that the
defendant's servant was grossly negligent and that his negligence was the
proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. It also affirmatively appeared that the
defendant had been guilty of negligence in its failure to exercise proper discretion
in the direction of the servant. This is true even if there exists no contract
between the defendant and plaintiff as there are extra-contractual undertakings
or duties owed by the defendant to the plaintiff in so far as there was an act or
omission productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of
the defendant. The defendant then will be liable for having failed to exercise due
care. The mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not
relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person.
● In this case, the SC held the contract of the company to transport Jose carried
with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of
entering and leaving its trains. That duty, being contractual, was direct and
immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault
was morally imputable to the company's servants.
● The argument of the railroad company is that even granting that the negligent
conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach
of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving
its trains, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by Jose was his
own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a
complete stop before alighting, the SC held that nothing in the circumstances
surrounding Jose at the time he alighted from the train which would have
admonished him or any other person of average prudence that to get off the train
under the conditions then existing was dangerous. The everyday life of Jose, and
thousands of other persons, had always involved alighting from a train barely
moving and has sustained no injury where the company has kept its platform free
from dangerous obstructions. The fact that the train was barely moving was
shown conclusively by the fact that it came to a stop within six meters from the
place where Jose stepped from it. Jose was so possessed of the vigor and agility
of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the
train was still moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble
person. The fact that the place was dark or dimly lit is another failure of the
company of a performance of a duty owed to Jose to keep the platform free or at
least place the piles on areas where alighting passengers may see them
adequately. The SC concludes that Jose, in alighting the train while it was
moving was not under in any way characterized by imprudence, but by his
ordinary experience, and therefore not guilty of contributory negligence.

Article 1162 - Jose Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 1162 - Jose Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 1162 - Jose Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.

You might also like