SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL # [November 19, 1921]

Rodrigueza v The Manila Railroad Company Rodrigueza v The Manila Railroad Company

I. Recit-ready summary building his house. What occurred is that the company, upon making
this extension, had acquired the land only, leaving the owner of the
Defendant Manila Railroad Company operates a line through the house free to remove it. Hence, he cannot be considered to have been
district of Daraga in the municipality of Albay. On January 29, 1918, a trespasser in the beginning. Rather, he was there at the sufferance
as one its train passed over said line, a great quantity of sparks were of the defendant company, and so long as his house remained in this
emitted from the smokestack of the locomotive, and fire started to exposed position, he undoubtedly assumed risk of any loss that might
four houses nearby belonging to the four plaintiffs and the same were have resulted from fires occasioned by the defendant’s locomotives
entirely consumed. All of the houses were of light construction with if operated and managed with ordinary care. But he cannot be held
the exception of the house of Remigio Rodrigueza, which was of to have assumed the risk of any damage that might result from
strong materials, though the roof was covered with nipa and cogon. the unlawful negligent acts of the defendant. Nobody is bound to
anticipate and defend himself against the possible negligence of
It is admitted that the defendant was negligent in relation to the another. Rather, he has a right to assume that the other will use the
origin of said fire in the following respects: (1) failing to exercise care of the ordinarily prudent man.
proper supervision over the employees in charge of the locomotive;
(2) allowing the locomotive which emitted these sparks to be The proximate and only cause of the damage that occurred was the
operated without having the smokestack protected by some device negligent act of the defendant in causing this fire. The circumstance
for arresting sparks; and (3) using Bataan coal, a fuel of known that the house was partly on the property of the defendant company
inferior quality which, upon combustion, produces sparks in great and therefore in dangerous proximity to passing locomotives was an
quantity. antecedent condition that may in fact have made the disaster
possible, but that circumstance cannot be imputed to him as
The defense raised by defendants is that the house of Rodrigueza was contributory negligence destructive of his right of action, because:
stood partly within the limits of the land owned by the defendant (1) that condition was not created by himself; (2) because his house
company. It also appears that, after the railroad track was laid, the remained on this ground by the toleration and therefore, consent of
company notified Rodrigueza to get his house off the land of the the Railroad Company; and (3) because even supposing the house to
company and to remove it from its exposed position. Rodrigueza did be improperly there, this fact would not justify the defendant in
not comply with this suggestion, though he promised to put an iron negligently destroying it.
roof on his house which he never did. It is based on this fact that the
defense contends contributory negligence on the part of Rodrigueza. Petition denied

Was Rodrigueza contributorily negligent? No II. Facts of the case

With respect to Rodrigueza, it is to be inferred that this house stood Defendant Manila Railroad Company operates a line through the
upon this ground before the Railroad Company laid its line over this district of Daraga in the municipality of Albay. On January 29, 1918,
course; and at any rate there is no proof that this plaintiff had as one its train passed over said line, a great quantity of sparks were
unlawfully intruded upon the railroad’s property in the act of emitted from the smokestack of the locomotive, and fire started to

G.R. NO: 160709 PONENTE: Street, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Assumption of Risk DIGEST MAKER: Lim

 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL # [November 19, 1921]

Rodrigueza v The Manila Railroad Company Rodrigueza v The Manila Railroad Company

four houses nearby belonging to the four plaintiffs and the same were WON Rodrigueza was contributorily negligent? He was not.
entirely consumed. All of the houses were of light construction with
the exception of the house of Remigio Rodrigueza, which was of IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
strong materials, though the roof was covered with nipa and cogon.
With respect to Rodrigueza, it is to be inferred that this house stood
The fire occurred immediately after the passage of the train, and a upon this ground before the Railroad Company laid its line over this
strong wind was blowing at the time. It does not appear either in the course; and at any rate there is no proof that this plaintiff had
complaint or in the agreed statement whose house caught fire first, unlawfully intruded upon the railroad’s property in the act of
though it is stated in the appellant’s brief that the fire was first building his house. What occurred is that the company, upon making
communicated to the house of Rodriguez, from where it spread to this extension, had acquired the land only, leaving the owner of the
others. house free to remove it. Hence, he cannot be considered to have been
It is also admitted to be true that the defendant was negligent in a trespasser in the beginning. Rather, he was there at the sufferance
relation to the origin of said fire in the following respects: (1) failing of the defendant company, and so long as his house remained in this
to exercise proper supervision over the employees in charge of the exposed position, he undoubtedly assumed risk of any loss that might
locomotive; (2) allowing the locomotive which emitted these sparks have resulted from fires occasioned by the defendant’s locomotives
to be operated without having the smokestack protected by some if operated and managed with ordinary care. But he cannot be held
device for arresting sparks; and (3) using Bataan coal, a fuel of to have assumed the risk of any damage that might result from
known inferior quality which, upon combustion, produces sparks in the unlawful negligent acts of the defendant. Nobody is bound to
great quantity. anticipate and defend himself against the possible negligence of
another. Rather, he has a right to assume that the other will use the
The defense raised by defendants is that the house of Rodrigueza was care of the ordinarily prudent man.
stood partly within the limits of the land owned by the defendant
company, though exact how faraway from the track, it does not The proximate and only cause of the damage that occurred was the
appear. It also appears that, after the railroad track was laid, the negligent act of the defendant in causing this fire. The circumstance
company notified Rodrigueza to get his house off the land of the that the house was partly on the property of the defendant company
company and to remove it from its exposed psotion. Rodrigueza did and therefore in dangerous proximity to passing locomotives was an
not comply with this suggestion, though he promised to put an iron antecedent condition that may in fact have made the disaster
roof on his housem which he never did. Instead, he changed the possible, but that circumstance cannot be imputed to him as
materials of the main roof to nipa, leaving the kitchen and media- contributory negligence destructive of his right of action, because:
aguas covered with cogon. It is based on this fact that the defense (1) that condition was not created by himself; (2) because his house
contends contributory negligence on the part of Rodrigueza. remained on this ground by the toleration and therefore, consent of
the Railroad Company; and (3) because even supposing the house to
be improperly there, this fact would not justify the defendant in
III. Issue/s negligently destroying it.

G.R. NO: 160709 PONENTE: Street, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Assumption of Risk DIGEST MAKER: Lim

 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL # [November 19, 1921]

Rodrigueza v The Manila Railroad Company Rodrigueza v The Manila Railroad Company

The circumstance that the defendant company, upon planting its line
What do you mean ordinary? What if it’s not ordinary?
near the house, had requested or directed him to remove it, did not That cannot be held to have assumed the risk of any damage that might result from
convert his occupancy into a trespass, or impose upon him any the unlawful negligence acts of the defendant. Nobody is bound to anticipate and
additional responsibility over and above what the law itself imposes defend himself against the possible negligence of another. Rather, he has a right to
assume that the other will use the care of the ordinary prudent man.
in such situation. In this connection, the company could have at any
time removed said house in the exercise of the power of eminent Are there instances where his house may be burned down by reason other than
Manila Railroad’s negligence?
domain but it elected not to do so. Yes.

Questions similar to that now before us have been under the But in this case, was the fire that burned that Rodrigueza’s house a consequence of
the oridnary, diligent operation by Manila Railroad of its train? No.
consideration of American courts many times, and their decisions are
found to be uniformly favorable to recovery where the property So, Manila Railroad was negligent?
destroyed have been placed in part or whole on the right of way of Yes.

the railroad company with its express or implied consent. And the How?
case for plaintiff is stronger where the company constructs its line in In failing to exercise proper supervision over the employees in charge of the
locomotive;
proximity to a house already built and fails to condemn it from its In allowing the locomotive which emitted these sparks to be operated without having
right of way. the smokestack protected by some device for arresting sparks; and
In using in its locomotive upon this occasion Bataan coal, a fuel of known inferior
quality which, upon combustion, produces sparks in great quantity.

V. Disposition

Petition denied.

VI. Notes

Who owned the land that the house was built on?
Manila Railroad.

Didin’t Manila Railroad tell Rodrigueza to leave? How did Rodrigueza react to?
Yes, he did, and he still didn’t leave.

How did the issue on assumption of risk arise?

Manila Railroad’s defense was that by building part of his house on the land of
Manila Railroad and by not leaving when asked to leave, he assumed the risk of any
loss that might have resulted from fires occasioned by the defendant's locomotives.
So, did Rodrigueza in fact assumed the risk of his house getting burned down?
Yes, but only to fires occasioned from ordinary care of Manila Railroad’s
locomotives.

G.R. NO: 160709 PONENTE: Street, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Assumption of Risk DIGEST MAKER: Lim