Case Name De Guia v.
Manila Electric Corporation
GR No. | Date [G.R. No. 14335. January 28, 1920.]
Topic Breach of Obligation - Modes of Breach - Standard of Care Required
Doctrine Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of
obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to
the circumstances.
Parties involved MANUEL DE GUIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA ELECTIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY,
defendant-appellant.
Ponente STREET, J
General Summary De Guia boarded a Manila Electric Railroad & Light train car on the way to the city. The train
encountered a switch after which the rear wheel of De Guia’s train car dislodged and smashed
a concrete post. When the car stopped De Guia was thrown against the train car door
receiving bruises and possible internal injuries. The train’s motorman was negligent for having
maintained too rapid a speed as seen in how the disconnected wheel smashed a concrete
post. Respondent said that this was due to a fortuitous event as there was a stone lodged in
the tracks. SC: There was a contractual relationship between De Guia and Manila Electric as De
Guia boarded the train headed for the city. Therefore, Manila Electric is bound to deliver De
Guia to the City safely and securely.
Facts
● September 4, 1915: 8pm in Caloocan Rizal, Physician De Guia boarded a train car headed for the city. The train
car encountered a switch after which the small wheels of the rear car disconnected. When the train car stopped
De Guia was thrown against the train car door receiving bruises and possible internal injuries
● Trial Court: Motorman was negligent for having maintained too rapid a speed. This is seen in how the
disconnected wheel shattered a concrete post. Respondent maintained that this was due to a fortuitous event.
The wheel was disconnected due to a stone lodged in the tracks.
Issue/s
● Whether respondent Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. is liable for De Guia’s injuries?
Ruling
● Yes
Reasoning
● Even supposing that the derailment of the car was due to the accidental presence of such a stone as suggested,
we do not think that the existence of negligence is disproved. The motorman says that upon approaching the
switch he reduced the electrical energy to the point that the car barely entered the switch under its own
momentum, and this operation was repeated as he passed out. Upon getting again on the straight track he put
the control successively at points one, two, three and lastly at point four. At the moment when the control was
placed at point four he perceived that the rear wheels were derailed and applied the brake; but at the same
instant the car struck the post, some 40 meters distant from the exit of the switch. One of the defendant's
witnesses stated in court that the rate of a car propelled by electricity with the control at point "four" should be
about five or 6 miles per hour. There was some other evidence to the effect that the car was behind schedule
time and that it was being driven, after leaving the switch, at a higher I ate than would ordinarily be indicated by
the control at point four. This inference is rendered more tenable by the circumstance that the car was practically
empty. On the whole, we are of the opinion that the finding of negligence in the operation of the car must be
sustained, as not being clearly contrary to the evidence; not so much because of excessive speed as because of
the distance which the car was allowed to run with the front wheels of the rear truck derailed. It seems to us
that an experienced and attentive motorman should have discovered that something was wrong and would have
stopped before he had driven the car over the entire distance from the point where the wheels left the track to
the place where the post was struck.
● The conclusion being accepted that there was negligence on the part of the motorman in driving the car, it
results that the company is liable for the damage resulting to the plaintiff as a consequence of that negligence.
The plaintiff had boarded the car as a passenger for the city of Manila and the company undertook to convey
him for hire. The relation between the parties was, therefore, of a contractual nature, and the duty of the carrier
is to be determined with reference to the principles of contract law, that is, the company was bound to convey
and deliver the plaintiff safely and securely with reference to the degree of care which, under the circumstances,
is required by law and custom applicable to the case (art. 1258, Civil Code). Upon failure to comply with that
obligation the company incurred the liability defined in articles 1103-1107 of the Civil Code.
● From the nature of the liability thus incurred, it is clear that the defendant company can not avail itself of the last
paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, since that provision has reference to liability incurred by negligence in
the absence of contractual relation, that is, to the culpa aquiliana of the civil law. It was therefore irrelevant for
the defendant company to prove, as it did, that the company had exercised due care in the selection and
instruction of the motorman who was in charge of its car and that he was in fact an experienced and reliable
servant.
Separate Opinions (if any)
●
Relevance to the topic
●
