LILIUS, ET AL. v.

THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

G.R. No. L-39587, Marc !", #93"
$ac%&' Lilius was driving with his wife and daughter for sightseeing in Pagsanjan Laguna. It was his first
time in the area and he was entirely unacquainted with the conditions of the road and had no knowledge
of the existence of a railroad crossing. Before reaching the crossing in question, there was nothing to
indicate its existence and, it was impossile to see an approaching train. !t aout seven or eight meters
from the crossing the plaintiff saw an autotruck parked on the left side of the road. "everal people, who
seemed to have alighted from the said truck, were walking on the opposite side. #e slowed down and
sounded his horn for the people to get out of the way. $ith his attention thus occupied, he did not see the
crossing ut he heard two short whistles. Immediately afterwards, he saw a huge lack mass fling itself
upon him, which turned out to e locomotive %o. &'( of the )*+,s train. -he locomotive struck the
plaintiff,s car right in the center. -he ( victims were injured and were hospitali.ed.
Lilus filed a case against )*+ in the +/I. !nswering the complaint, it denies each and every allegation
thereof and, y way of special defense, alleges that the Lilius, with the cooperation of his wife and
coplaintiff, negligently and recklessly drove his car, and prays that it e asolved from the complaint.
-he +/I decided in favor of Lilius. -he two parties appealed said decision, each assigning errors on said
judgement.
I&&()' $hether or not )anila *oad +ompany is guilty of negligence and civilly liale.
H)*+' -he court is of the opinion that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the defendant0
appellant company, for not having had on that occasion any semaphore at the crossing at 1ayap, to serve
as a warning to passers0y of its existence in order that they might take the necessary precautions efore
crossing the railroad2 and, on the part of its employees 3 the flagman and switchman, for not having
remained at his post at the crossing in question to warn passers0y of the approaching train2 the
stationmaster, for failure to send the said flagman and switchman to his post on time2 and the engineer,
for not having taken the necessary precautions to avoid an accident, in view of the asence of said
flagman and switchman, y slackening his speed and continuously ringing the ell and lowing the
whistle efore arriving at the crossing.
!lthough it is proale that the defendant0appellant entity employed the diligence of a good father of a
family in selecting its aforesaid employees, however, it did not employ such diligence in supervising their
work and the discharge of their duties ecause, otherwise, it would have had a semaphore or sign at the
crossing and, on previous occasions as well as on the night in question, the flagman and switchman
would have always een at his post at the crossing upon the arrival of a train.
-he diligence of a good father of a family, which the law requires in order to avoid damage, is not confined
to the careful and prudent selection of suordinates or employees ut includes inspection of their work
and supervision of the discharge of their duties.