UP Law BGC Eve 2024 De Guia v Manila Electric Co.

OBLICON Art. 1173, NCC 1920 Street

SUMMARY DOCTRINE
De Guia, boarding an electric street car operated by The duty of the carrier is to be determined with
Manila Electric Co., sustained bruises and possibly reference to the principles of contract law, that is,
internal injuries after one of its wheels derailed the company was bound to convey and deliver the
causing De Guia to be thrown against the door. plaintiff safely and securely with reference to the
Court held that the motorman was negligent. Manila degree of care which, under the
Electric Co. is liable for the motorman’s negligence circumstances, is required by law and
since a contractual relation (contract to convey) custom applicable to the case (art. 1258, Civil
exists between De Guia and Manila Electric Co. Code, now art. 1173).

FACTS

 Manuel de Guia, a physician residing in Caloocan, boarded a car at the end of the line with the intention of
coming to the city.
 At about 30 meters from the starting point the car entered a switch, the plaintiff remaining on the back
platform holding the handle of the right-hand door.
 Upon coming out of the switch, the small wheels of the rear truck left the track, ran for a short distance
along the macadam filling, which was flush with the rails, and struck a concrete post at the left of the tract.
 The post was shattered; and as the car stopped the plaintiff was thrown against the door with some
violence, receiving bruises and possibly certain internal injuries, the extent of which is a subject of dispute.
 The trial court found:
o That the motorman of the derailed car was negligent in having maintained too rapid a speed.
o This inference appears to be based chiefly upon the results of the shock, involving the shattering of
the post and the bending of the kingpost of the car.
 It is insisted for the defendant company that the derailment was due to the presence of a stone, somewhat
larger than a goose egg, which had become accidentally lodged between the rails at the juncture of the
switch and which was unobserved by the motorman.
o In this view the derailment of the car is supposed to be due to casus fortuitos and not chargeable to
the negligence of the motorman.

RATIO

W/N the motor man was negligent.

Yes.

There was negligence not so much because of excessive speed as because of the distance which the car was
allowed to run with the front wheels of the rear truck derailed. An experienced and attentive motorman should
have discovered that something was wrong and would have stopped before he had driven the car over the entire
distance from the point where the wheels left the track to the place where the post was struck.

W/N Manila Electric Co. is liable for the negligence of the motor man.
Yes.

The plaintiff had 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, now art.
1173).

W/N Manila Electric Co.’s liability may be extinguished on the basis that it exercised had
exercised due care in the selection and instruction of the motorman and that he was in fact an
experienced and reliable servant pursuant to the last par. of Art. 1903 (now 2180) of the Civil
Code?
No.

That provision has reference to liability incurred by negligence in the absence of contractual relation, that is,
to the culpa aquiliana of the civil law. Since there is a contractual relation between De Guia and Motor Electric
Co., Manila Electric Co. is still liable for the negligence of the motorman although it exercised the diligence of a
good father of family.
 FALLO

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment of lower court is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.