Facts: On Sept. 4, 1915 at around 8pm Dr.

Manuel de Guia boarded a street car line in Caloocan and at

about 30 meters from the starting point, the small wheels of the rear truck left the track and struck a
concrete post on the left track. Manuel was thrown against the door and received bruises and other
claimed internal injuries.

De Guia filed a suit for damages wanting to claim the following:

1. compensation for money lost due to his inability to properly attend to his professional labors for 3
mos & his practice was suspended during that time
2. P3,900.00 w/c he should have earned P3,900.00 as a district health officer in Occidental Negros where
he was supposed to serve for 2 years earning P1,600.00 per annum. He even added P350.00 as
earnings from possible outside practice.
3. P40,000.00 - P10k for his medical treatment and P30k for injuries w/c he claim would incapacitate
him for exercise of medical profession in the future. He claimed to have numerous diseases.
*Breakdown for P10k medical expenses: P350 to Dr. Montes (doctor who first saw de Guia) plus
payment to 3 other physicians.

The respondent insisted that the derailment was due to a stone which was not noticed by the
motorman, therefore the derailment is supposed to be due to casus fortuitous and not chargeable to
the negligence of the motorman.

RTC found the motorman of the derailed car negligent for driving at a high speed based from the
testimonies and damages. Awarded plaintiff P900.00 for loss of professional earnings. P3,900.00 for
supposed salary as a district health officer in Occidental Negros. Total award amounts to P6,100.00

Issue: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable

Yes. The Miguel de Guia 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.

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, because such is only applicable in negligence w/o
contractual relation.

However, the Court can moderate the company’s liability according to the circumstances of the case (CC
Art. 1103) especially since the company can be considered as a debtor in good faith due to its exercise of
due diligence (CC Art. 1107). Thus, defendant’s liability is limited to damages that might be directly
caused by the physical injuries inflicted & w/c were in fact a necessary result of those injuries.