Case Name De Guia vs Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company

Topic Breach of Obligation

Case No., Date G.R. No. L-14335
Ponente J. Street
Case Summary Petitioner de Guia, a physician, suffered injuries while riding on one of the
defendant’s car. He sought to appeal the awarded damages of the trial
court. The SC found that the defendant company is liable since its
relationship with the plaintiff is contractual in nature. They are bound to
convey and deliver the plaintiff safely. The SC, however, modified the
damages awarded emphasizing its power to moderate liability according
to the circumstances of the case.
Digest Author Dianne Monte

Doctrines Involved Art. 1173 NCC Art. 2201 NCC

Application of Doctrines 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
which, under the
circumstances, is required by
law and custom applicable to
the cases.
The extent of the liability
for the breach of a contract must
be determined in the light of the
situation in existence at the time
the contract is made. And the
damages ordinarily recoverable
are in all events limited to such
as might be reasonably foreseen
in the light of the facts then
known to the contracting parties.

RELEVANT FACTS

 This is an appeal prosecuted both by the plaintiff and the defendant from a judgment of the CFI
Manila, whereby the plaintiff was awarded the sum of P6,100, with interest and costs, as damages
incurred by him in consequence of physical injuries sustained while riding on one of the
defendant's car.
 September 4, 1915 – At about 8 pm, the plaintiff Manuel de Guia, a physician residing in
Caloocan boarded a street-car with the intention of coming to the city.
o At about 30 meters from the standing point the car entered a switch, the plaintiff
remaining on the back platform holding the handle of the right-hand door.
o Upon coming out of the switch, small wheels of rear truck left the track eventually
shattering a concrete post at the left of the truck.
o Due to this, 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.
 De Guia alleges in the complaint that the damages incurred by him as a result of the injuries in
question ascend to the amount of P40,000.
o Of this amount: P10,000 (cost of medical treatment and other expenses incidental to the
plaintiff’s cure) and P30,000 (damage resulting from the character of his injuries, which
 are claimed to have incapacitated him for the exercise of the medical profession in the
future).
 In support, the plaintiff introduced evidence consisting of his own testimony and numerous
medical experts.
o Stating that as a result of the injuries, he had developed infract of the liver and traumatic
neurosis, accompanied by nervoursness, vertigo and other disturbing symptoms of a
serious and permanent character. It was also said that this will render him liable to a host
of other dangerous diseases.
o Different physicians who checked on him had different testimonies.
 Guia stated that as a result of his head being struck on one of the seats, he
became unconscious. He was taken to his home which was only a distance away.
He was seen by a physician in the employment of the defendant company and
stated that he was already walking about and suffering from bruises on his chest.
 Later, Dr. Carmelo Basa came. He stated that during his visit, De Guia several
times spit up blood which was probably caused by the bruises on his side.
 De Guia went to Manila to consult Dr. Miciano. During the course of a few
weeks. He called into consultation othe doctors who were introduced as witneses.
 The Defendant, however, introduced expert testimonies who showed that the physical effects of
the injuries were trivial and merely simulated.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
1. W/N the motorman of the
derailed car was negligent
Ratio
YES.
Defendant: The derailment was due to the presence of a stone which had
become accidentally lodged between the rails at the juncture of the switch and
which was unobserved by the motorman. Thus, casus fortuitous.
 Court: Even supposing that the derailment of the car was due to the
accidental presence of such a stone as suggested, we do not think that
the existence of negligence is disproved.
 Operator of the car was moving at point four speed (about 5-6 miles
per hour) but some witnesses observed that the car was behind
schedule time and that it was being driven after leaving the switch, at
a higher rate than would ordinarily be indicated by the control at pont
four. This inference is more tenable since the car was practically
empty.
 Finding of negligence in the operation of the car must be sustained, as
not being contrary to evidence not so much 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.
2. W/N the defendant company YES. Liable for the damage resulting to the plaintiff as a consequence of that
is liable negligence.
 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 which, under the circumstances, is
required by law and custom applicable to the cases.
 The company’s liability is defined in articles 1103-1107 of the Civil
Code (Articles 1172, 1173, 1174, 2200, 2201 in the NCC) (*see
notes)
 The company cannot also avail itself of the last paragraph of Article
1903 (Art. 1280 NCC), since that provision has reference to liability
incurred by negligence in the absence of contractual relation (culpa
aquiliana)
o It is irrelevant for them to prove that they had exercised due
care in the selection and instruction of the motorman.
3. What is the extent of the The Court has the power to moderate liability according to the
defendant’s liability? circumstances of the case (Art. 1172 NCC).
a. Did the trial court err in
awarding of the damages The extent of the liability for the breach of a contract must be
for loss of professional determined in the light of the situation in existence at the time the
earnings (P900)? contract is made. And the damages ordinarily recoverable are in all
b. Did the trial court err in events limited to such as might be reasonably foreseen in the light of the
the awarding of the facts then known to the contracting parties.
damages for inability to
accept a position as a a. NO. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff was unable to properly
district health officer? attend his professional labors for 3 months and suspend his practice
c. Did the trial court err in for that period. By testimonial evidence, his customary income as a
not awarding damages physician, was about P300/month. So the trial court accordingly
for the plaintiff’s allowed P900 as damages for loss of earnings.
supposed incapacitation
for future professional b. YES. The trial court erred. The representative from Negros
practice (P30,000)? Occidental has supposedly asked Dr. Montinola to nominate the
d. Is the plaintiff plaintiff as district health officer of Negros Occidental for 2 years,
reasonable in demanding with a salary of P1,600 per annum and a possible outside practice
P10,000 for the cost of worth of P350.
medical treatment and However, even if true, the damages were too speculative to be the
other expenses incident basis of recovery in a civil action. Damage of this character could not,
to his cure? at the time of the accident, have been foreseen by the delinquent party
as a probable consequence of the injury inflicted.

c. NO. The trial court was justified in rejecting the exaggerated estimate
of damages.The plaintiff’s showing of various testimonial evidences
from medical experts were not appreciated. The evidence showed that
immediately after the incident, the plaintiff, sensing in the situation a
possibility of profit, devoted himself with great assiduity to the
promotion of this litigation; and with the aid of his own professional
knowledge. It also appears that the medical experts were his friends
and associates. He enveloped himself more or less unconsciously in
 an atmosphere of delusion which rendered him incapable of
appreciating at their true value the symptoms of disorder which he
developed.

d. NO. He is only justified with P200 which is the amount actually paid
to Dr. Montes who treated him. Dr. Montes, in his testimony, speaks
in the most general terms with respect to the times and extent of the
services rendered. It is not clear that those services which were
rendered many months, or year, after the incident had in fact any
necessary relation to the injuries received by the plaintiff.

Regarding the 3 other physicians, it does not appear that they in fact
made charges for those services with the intention of imposing
obligations on the plaintiff to pay them. In employing so many
physicians, the plaintiff must have had in view the successful
promotion of the issue of this lawsuit rather than the bona fide
purpose of effecting the cure of his injuries.

4. W/N the trial court erred in YES. They cannot be admitted as primary evidence since it is fundamentally
treating written statements of of a hearsay nature. The only legitimate use of certificates could be put, as
the physicians who testified evidence for plaintiff, was to allow the physician who issued it to refer
as primary evidence thereto, to refresh his memory upon details which he might have forgotten.

RULING

Judgement from the trial court modified by reducing the amount of the recovery to P1,100 with legal
interest from November 8, 1916.

Notes:

Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is
also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)

Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time
and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2,
shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which
is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)

Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
(1105a)
Article 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but
also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. (1106)

Article 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith
is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and
which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages
which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a)