MANUEL DE GUIA, plaintiff vs.

THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHTCOMPANY, defendant &

appellant [1920]Facts:
Sept. 4, 1915, 8 p.m.

de Guia, a physician & resident of Caloocan boarded a street-car (parang train ata to) in Caloocan. He boarded a
car at the end of the line.

30 meters from the start in g po in t: car entere d a s witc h, de Guia rem aine d at the back of the
platform holding the handle of the right hand door

Upon coming out of the switch, small wheels of rear truck left the track eventuallyshattering a concrete post at the
left of the track. Defendant company claims it wascaused by a stone somewhat larger than a goose egg lodged
accidentally betweenthe rails.

As the c ar stop ped , de Gu ia was thro wn ag ainst the door w/s om e violen ce w/c resulted to some
bruises and probably some internal injuries.

De Guia claims that he became unconscious due to the impact & he was taken to hishous e. D iffe re nt
p hysic ians who chec ked on h im had d iffe re nt test im onies . On eclaim ed that de Guia was walking
while one said that he spit up b lo od due to the bruises on his side. Signs of physical & nervous
derangement were also observed.However, defendant presented some experts who testified that de Guias
injurieswere trivial & simulated.De Guia filed a suit for damages wanting to claim the
following:1 . c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r m o n e y l o s t d u e t o h i s i n a b i l i t y t o p r o p e r l y
a t t e n d t o h i s professional labors for 3 mos & his practice was suspended during that time2 . P 3 , 9 0 0 . 0 0
w / c h e s h o u l d h a v e e a r n e d P 3 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 a s a d i s t r i c t h e a l t h o f f i c e r i n Occidental Negros
where he was supposed to serve for 2 years earning P1,600.00per annum. He even added P350.00 as earnings
from possible outside practice.3 . P 4 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - P 1 0 k f o r h i s m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t a n d P 3 0 k f o r
i n j u r i e s w / c h e c l a i m would incapacitate him for exercise of medical profession in the future. He claimed
tohave numerous diseases.*Breakdown for P10k medical expenses: P350 to Dr. Montes (doctor who first saw
deGuia) plus payment to 3 other physicians.RTC: motorman neglig en t in m aint aining a very rap id speed .
P90 0.0 0 fo r loss o f pro fes sion al e arn in gs . P3,900 .0 0 for suppo sed salary as a dist rict he alth
o ffic er in Occidental Negros. Total award amounts to P6,100.00
Issues & Ratio:1. WON the motorman/car operator was negligent - YES

De railm en t is actually a fort uitous e vent as dete rm in ed by cause. But operat ors negligence cannot
be denied. He was moving at point four speed (about 5-6 milesper hour) but some witnesses observed that the
train was moving at a higher ratesince the car was behind schedule. Another consideration would be the fact that
thecar was practically empty.

Main basis for imputing negligence: not so much because of the excessive speed butthe fact that the car was
allowed to run a relatively long distance considering thatthe front whe els of the rear t ruck we re derailed .
An e xpe rien ced & attent ive motorman should have discovered that something was wrong & would have
stopped.
2. WON the defendant company is liable - YES

L iable for the damag e resu lt in g to de Guia due to the neg lige nc e. The re was a contractual relationship
bet him & the company. Company was bound to convey & deliver him safely & securely w/the degree of care
required by law & custom (CC Art.1258).

Defense of exercise of due care in selection & instruction of operator (CC Art. 1903)is immaterial because such is
only applicable in negligence w/o contractual relation.

H o w e v e r, t h e C o u r t c a n m o d e r a t e t h e c o m p a n y s l i a b i l i t y a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e c ircu mstances of the case (CC Art. 1103 ) es pecially since the com pany can be con sidered as a
d eb to r in go od faith du e to its exerc ise o f du e d ilig en ce (C C Ar t. 1107). Thus, defendants liability is
limited to damages that might be directly causedby th e ph ys ic al injur ies infl icted & w/c were in fa ct a
n ecess ar y res ult of th ose injuries.
3 . WON lower co urt erred in a dmittin g as prima ry evidence the written statements of 4
physicians who examined de Guia. YES.
Physician s merely id en tifi ed th eir sign atures . These ca nno t b e c la ssifi ed a s pr im ar y evidence since
theyre of a hearsay nature. Physicians should have been asked to testifyi n c o u r t . T h e i r s t a t e m e n t s
c a n n o t b e u s e d c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n n o failure/exhaustion of memory.
4. Damages claimed by de Guia:

P900.00 award for loss of professional earnings sustained.

P3,900.00 (health officers salary) denied since its way too speculative.

Damages for supposed incapacitation denied. Court has reason to believe that deGuia wants to profit from the
situation thus his promotion of the litigation. He madeus e o f h is m ed ic al kno wled ge c oupled w/the h elp of
h is p ro fession al ass oc ia tes to make it appear that he has a strong case.

Medical expenses: Limited to expenditures as were reasonably suited to the case.D efend an t is on ly lia ble fo r
the expens es incu rred du ring the fi rs t check- up w/c am oun ts to P3 50 . Ho wever, on ly P20 0 was
p aid by plaintiff thus, tha t is the on lyam oun t w/ c the defend ant c omp any is ob liged to pay.
Oblig atio n WRT o th er physicians cannot be subj to recovery since:a .theres no p roo f th at th es e ph ys icians
ch arged fo r thos e s er vices. Th ey s eem to be gratuitous services. Physicians testimonies re their rates do not
mean thatde Guia did actually pay them.b . C o u r t b e l i e v e s t h a t d e G u i a e m p l o y e d m a n y
p h y s i c i a n s t o m a k e s u r e o f h i s success in this litigation rather than to actually cure him.
Holding:
Modified. de Guia entitled to P1,100.00 w/legal interest from Nov. 8, 1916