Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

G.R. No. L-12191

October 14, 1918
Fisher, J.

People/companies involved in the case:

Jose Cangco – petitioner, employee/clerk of Manila Railraod Company
Manila Railroad Company – respondent

FACTS:

Jose Cangco frequently riding the train of Manila Railroad Company in coming daily to
the company’s (Manila Railroad) office in the City of Manila where he was employed as
a clerk. He used a pass, supplied by the company which entitled him to ride upon the
company’s trains free of charge. One evening, as the train drew near to his destination,
he arose from his seat. When he was about to alight from the train, Cangco accidentally
stepped on a sack of watermelons which he failed to notice because it was already
7:00pm and it was dim when it happened. As a result, he slipped and fell violently on
the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving
car, causing his right arm badly crushed and lacerated which was eventually amputated.

Cangco instituted an action against Manila Railroad Company founding his action upon
the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of
melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security
of passenger alighting from the company's trains.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court found that although negligence is attributable to the defendant, the
plaintiff himself failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach, and was therefore
precluded from recovery of damages.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Company is liable and that there is a
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

HELD:

Yes. It is important to note that the foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the
contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff
has suffered arises, if at all, from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of
defendant to exercise due care in its performance. That is to say, its liability is direct and
immediate, differing essentially, in legal viewpoint from that presumptive responsibility
for the negligence of its servants, imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code, which can
be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision.
It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before
alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. But, there is no
reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he
did had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe
alighting place.
The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while
the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that
therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence.