cangco vs. manila rail road

7/27/2019 Cangco vs. Manila Rail Road

1/5

TORTS AND DAMAGES PATULOT,

JERRAEMIE NIKKA C.

October 5,

2012

October 14, 1918

G.R. No. L-12191

JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.

TOPIC: Torts distinguished from Breach of Contract

FACTS:

1. Jose Cangco was an employee of Manila Railroad Company as a clerk (P25/ month). Upon going tothe company he used a pass, supplied by the respondent which entitled him to ride in the companys

rain for free.

2. When Cangco was returning home from work and as the train drew up at the station of San Mateo,

Cangco while making his exit, took his position but on the side of the train there is a cement platform

which begins to rise with a moderate gradient some distance away from the respondent company.

3. There is another passenger and also an employee of the respondent company who alighted from

the train safely however, when it is time for Cangco to get off from the train one or both of his feet

came contact with a sacks of melon which resulted for him to fall and since the train was still moving

then. His right arm was badly crushed and lacerated.

4. The accident happened on a dark night. The said station was lit by a single light. The sacks of

melons were on the platform because it was customary season for harvesting melons and most of it

was brought to the station for shipment to the market. Since there were sacks of melons on the

platform there was only two feet between the sacks of the melons and the edge of the

platform and the accident happened because the foot of Cangco alighted upon one of these melons

for according to him he did not see the melons for it was dark on that time.

5. Because of the accident Cangco was brought to the hospital where his arm was amputated but

there was a need for another operation so he was brought to another hospital where his arm was

amputated higher near the shoulder.

6. Cangco filed a complaint to recover damages against the respondent contending that the negligence

of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and

in leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's

train.


2/5


JERRAEMIE NIKKA C.

October 5,

2012

7. CFI: There was negligence on the part of respondents servants and employees by reason of the

fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars,

yet the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was

therefore precluded from recovering. In favor of the respondent.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBLIGATION ARISING FROM TORTS AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

BREACH OF CONTRACT HAPPENS TORT ARISES

(a) The breach of these general duties whether

due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if

productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to

indemnify the injured party.

(b) the vinculum exists independently of the

breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the

parties when entering into the contractual relation

(a) In cases of non-contractual obligation it is the

wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which

creates the vinculum juris.

ITO NAINTINDIHAN KO

NOTE: I believe that the obligation in this case arises from a contract of carriage, Since there is

a breach of contract on the part of the respondent there is no need to prove that there is a

negligence on their part for the fact that the respondent company did not fulfill its obligation bytransporting safely its passenger to its destination a vinculum juris exists already or the

respondent is already obligated to pay for whatever damages that the Cangco suffered or

incurred. On the other hand obligation arises from quasi delict, if there is negligence. So it isright for me to say that if there is no contract between parties, obligation arises if there is

negligence and that negligence result to the injury of the other party.


3/5


JERRAEMIE NIKKA C.

October 5,

2012

DEFINITION OF TERMS


4/5


JERRAEMIE NIKKA C.

October 5,

2012

(1) QUASI CONTRACT An obligation that the law creates in the absence

of an agreement between the parties

(2) EXTRA CONTRACTUAL CULPA Always based upon a voluntary act or omission

which, without willful intent, but by mere

negligence or inattention, has caused damage to

another

(3) Juris Tantum prima facie, rebuttable or disputable

presumption or those which may be

overcome or disproved.

(4) Juris Et De Jure conclusive or those which the law does not allow

to be contradicted

(5) Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those

mutual duties which civilized society imposes

upon its members, or which arise from these

relations, other than contractual, of certain

members of society to others

(6) Vinculum Juris A tie that legally binds one person to another

MALCOLM, [dissent]

- With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of full accord, namely, "It may be admitted that

had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury

suffered by him could not have occurred." With the general rule relative to a passenger's contributory

negligence, we are likewise in full accord, namely, "An attempt to alight from a moving train is

negligence per se." Adding these two points together, we have the logical result - the Manila Railroad

Co. should be absolved from the complaint, and judgment affirmed.

ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceding article is enforceable not only for personal acts

and omissions but also for those persons for whom another is responsible.

OTHER INFORMATION

(a)The employees of the railroad company were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the


5/5


JERRAEMIE NIKKA C.

October 5,

2012

platform. 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 the plaintiff. It follows that the

defendant company is liable for the damage unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own

contributory negligence

(b) NOTE: The foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage, and that the

obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises from the breach of that

contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance BUT it can be

rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision

(c) In Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, an action is brought upon the theory of the extra-

contractual liability of the defendant to respond for the damage caused by the carelessness

of his employee while acting within the scope of his employment The Court, after citing the last

paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, said: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence

of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the

part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision

over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure,

and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that 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.

(d) Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-contractual or contractual. Extra-contractual

obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society

imposes upon its members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain

members of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal rights of each

member of society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties, which the existence of

those rights imposes upon all other members of society. The breach of these general duties whether

due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation toindemnify the injured party.

cangco vs. manila rail road

Documents