Cangco vs.

Manila Railroad Company

March 15, 2016

No. 12191, October 14, 1918

FISHER, J.: (Negligence by employee attributable to employer even in contractual breach)

FACTS

Jose Cangco was an employee of Manila Railroad Company as clerk. He lived in San Mateo
which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company. He used to travel by trade
to the office located in Manila for free. On January 21, 1915, on his way home by rail and
when the train drew up to the station in San Mateo, he rose from his seat, making his exit
through the door. When he stepped off from the train, one or both of his feet came in contact
with a sack of watermelons causing him to slip off from under him and he fell violently on
the platform. He rolled and was drawn under the moving car. He was badly crushed and
lacerated. He was hospitalized which resulted to amputation of his hand. He filed the civil
suit for damages against defendant in CFI of Manila founding his action upon the negligence
of the employees of defendant in placing the watermelons upon the platform and in leaving
them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passengers alighting from the train. The
trial court after having found negligence on the part of defendant, adjudged saying that
plaintiff failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded
from recovering, hence this appeal.

ISSUE

Is the negligence of the employees attributable to their employer whether the negligence is
based on contractual obligation or on torts?

HELD

YES. It cannot be doubted that the employees of defendant were guilty of negligence in piling
these sacks on the platform in the manner stated. It necessarily follows that the defendant
company is liable for the damage thereby occasioned unless recovery is barred by the
plaintiff’s own contributory negligence. It is to note that the foundation of the legal liability
is the contract of carriage. However Art. 1903 relates only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa
contractual, as the Court cleared on the case of Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf. It is not accurate to say
that proof of diligence and care in the selection and control of the servant relieves the master
from liability fro the latter’s act. The fundamental distinction between obligation of this
character and those which arise from contract, rest upon the fact that in cases of non-
contractual obligations it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the
vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists independently of the
breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual
relation. When the source of obligation upon which plaintiff’s cause of action depends is a
negligent act or omission, the burden of proof rest upon the plaintiff to prove negligence. On
the other hand, in contractual undertaking, proof of the contract and of its nonperformance
is suffient prima facie to warrant recovery. The negligence of employee cannot be invoked to
relieve the employer from liability as it will make juridical persons completely immune from
damages arising from breach of their contracts. Defendant was therefore liable for the injury
suffered by plaintiff, whether the breach of the duty were to be regarded as constituting
culpa aquiliana or contractual. As Manresa discussed, whether negligence occurs as an
incident in the course of the performance of a contractual undertaking or is itself the source
of an extra-contractual obligation, its essential characteristics are identical. There is always
an act or omission productive of damage due to carelessness or inattention on the part of the
defendant. The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the
duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains.
Contributory negligence on the part of petitioner as invoked by defendant is untenable. In
determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act- that is to say,
whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly- age, sex, and physical condition of the
passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be
considered. It is to be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to plaintiff as it was his daily
routine. Our conclusion is there is slightly underway characterized by imprudence and
therefore was not guilty of contributory negligence. The decision of the trial court is
REVERSED.