CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

30 Phil 768
October 14, 1918
Doctrine: [QUASI-DELICTS] When an injury is caused by
the negligence of an employee, there arises a presumption
that there was negligence on the part of the employer,
either in the selection of the employee or in the supervision
over the employee. If the employer shows to the satisfaction
of the court that he has exercised the care and diligence of
a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and
he is relieved from liability.
FACTS:

Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant railroad

company working as a clerk with a minimum wage of
25 pesos. He rides the companys trains free of charge
by using a pass supplied by the company. He lives in a
pueblo located upon the line of the railroad company.
20 January 1915. The train was not in a full stop but
was barely moving as it was already slowing down.
Another employee was able to alight the train safely.
The train proceeded a little farther when plaintiff
stepped off, but one or both his feet stepped on a sack
of watermelons. He slipped and fell violently on the
platform. His body rolled off the platform and was
drawn under the moving car of the train, causing his
arm to get caught, crushing it in the process as well as
acquiring lacerations.
The accident happened sometime between 7 and 8pm
on a dark night. Railroad was lighted dimly that the
objects on the platform could not be seen or could
hardly be seen.
Plaintiff underwent 2 operations to amputate the
crushed arm. The medical and surgical fees amounts
to P790.25.
Plaintiff filed a claim for damages in the Court of First
Instance in the City of Manila. He alleged that the
accident was caused by the negligence of the servants

and employees of the company as to how they placed

the sacks of watermelons upon the platform.
The trial judge decided in favor of the company. While
there was negligence on how the sacks were placed,
the plaintiff himself failed to use due caution in
alighting the coach, precluding him from recovering
damages. Hence, the appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages

HELD:
THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT IS REVERSED.
Plaintiff rendered the sum of P3,290.25.
The foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is
the contract of carriage. The obligation to respond for
the damage which the plaintiff suffered arises from the
breach of that contract by reason of the failure of the
defendant to exercise due care in its performance.
Extra-contractual obligation: the source is the breach
or omission of those mutual duties which civilized
society imposes upon its members. The breach of
these general duties whether due to willful intent or to
mere inattention, if it produces injury, gives rise to an
obligation to indemnify the injured party. [The
vinculum juris here is the wrongful or negligent act or
omission, as opposed to a contractual obligation where
the vinculum juris exists independently of the breach
of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when
entering into the contractual relation]
Thousands of persons alight from trains under similar
conditions and sustain no injury where the company
has kept its platforms free from dangerous
obstructions. There was a negligent failure on part of
the defendant to perform its duty to provide a safe
alighting place (obstructions on the platform, dark/dim
lighting)
The correct doctrine relating to the subject is that
expressed in Thompsons work on Negligence:
Ordinary or reasonable care care to which a man of

ordinary prudence would use under similar

circumstances to avoid an injury.
Plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence: (1) the
nature of the platform cement - assured the
passenger a stable and even surface on which to
alight; (2) plaintiff possessed the vigor and agility, by
which it could be said that it was not risky for him to
get off the train; (3) the place was familiar to him as it
was a daily custom for him.

Relevant Provisions:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible