Thursday, March 14, 2019

[CASE DIGEST] JOSE CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO. (G.R. No. L-12191)

October 14, 1918

Ponente: Fisher, J.

SUMMARY:

Cangco was alighting from a moving train when he stepped on a sack of watermelons on the platform, causing him to fall and be drawn under the train. His right arm was crushed and subsequently amputated. He filed an action for damages against Manila Railroad, claiming negligence on the part of the company. CFI denied his claim, citing contributory negligence. But the SC held that Manila Railroad was liable, not because of a quasi-delict (culpa extra contractual), but on account of breach of the contract of carriage (culpa contractual) between the company and Cangco.

FACTS:

Jose Cangco, a copy clerk of Manila Railroad, used a pass supplied by his employer entitling him to ride upon the company’s trains for free.

On January 20, 1915, while the train was slowing down at the train’s San Mateo station, Cangco arose from his seat and inched his way to the door. He was standing behind Zuniga, another passenger, who stood directly at the coach’s exit. Zuniga was able to alight safely on the platform

When the train had proceeded a little farther, Cangco stepped off also. However, one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons. As a result, his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform.

Cangco’s body rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. He was rushed to a certain hospital in Manila where his arm was amputated. The result of this operation was unsatisfactory, and so Cangco had to be carried to another hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again amputated higher up near the shoulder. In all, Cangco spent P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses.

It appears that the incident occurred between 7 and 8 in the evening. The station was dimly lit at the time, so the objects on the platform were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from a lighted car.

In addition, the presence of a sack of watermelons on the platform where Cangco alighted can be attributed to the fact that it was the customary season for harvesting these melons and a large lot had been brought to the station for shipment to the market. They were contained in numerous sacks which had been piled on the platform.

On account of his injuries, Cangco filed an action for damages against Manila Railroad, claiming that the latter’s employees were negligent 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.

CFI: Denied Cangco’s claim for damages because although negligence was attributable to Manila Railroad by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, Cangco himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach. He was therefore precluded from recovering.
Hence, the instant appeal.



RULING

Manila Railroad is liable due to its breach of its contract of carriage with Cangco, not by reason of vicarious liability due to its employees’ negligence. Thus, it cannot excuse itself from liability by showing that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Whether Manila Railroad can posit the defense that it exercised due diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision of its employees to escape liability. – NO.

Manila Railroad: It exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees, so it should not be liable. But even granting that the negligent conduct of its employees in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by Cangco was his own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting.

SC: In a case of negligence which presupposes the existence of a contractual obligation, the plaintiff should only prove that the contract exists and that the defendant has breached it—it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove negligence. As such, it is obvious that proof on the part of defendant that the negligence or omission of his servants or agents caused the breach of the contract would NOT constitute a defense to the action.

In the instant case, the facts averred show a contractual undertaking (contract of carriage) by Manila Railroad for the benefit of Cangco, and it is alleged that Manila Railroad failed to perform such contract. Given the circumstances, it is not necessary for Cangco to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to negligence on the part of the Manila Railroad or of its employees. Proof of the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.

The public policy justification for it is that if the negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means of discharging the liability arising from contract, the anomalous result would be that a person acting through the medium of agents or servants in the performance of their contracts would be in a better position than those acting in person.

In effect, juridical persons would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts, given that juridical persons can of necessity only act through agents  or employees, and it would no doubt be true in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in selection and direction of such employees.

For example, if one delivers securities to a banking corporation as collateral, and they are lost by reason of the negligence of some clerk employed by the bank, would it be just and reasonable to permit the bank to relieve itself of liability for the breach of its contract to return the collateral upon the payment of the debt by proving that due care had been exercised in the selection and direction of the clerk? Definitely not -- the bank remains liable.

Even a review of jurisprudence would should that in no case has the Court ever decided that the negligence of the defendant’s servants has been held to constitute a defense to an action for damages for breach of contract. 

Whether it was improper for Cangco to step off the train while it was still moving slowly. – NO.

MRR’s arguments: Cangco is guilty of contributory negligence for alighting from a moving train without waiting until the train had come to a complete stop. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, if the accident was caused by plaintiff’s own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages should be apportioned.

SC: While it is true that had Cangco waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. But this proposition is too badly stated and is at variance with the experience of every-day life. In this particular instance, that the train was barely moving when Cangco alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop within six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions.

The correct doctrine relating to this subject is: that expressed in Thompson’s work on Negligence (vol. 3, sec. 3010) as follows: “The test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence in attempting to alight from a moving railway train, is that of ordinary or reasonable care. It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudent person, of the age, sex and condition of the passenger, would have acted as the passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. This care has been defined to be, not the care which may or should be used by the prudent man generally, but the care which a man of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances, to avoid injury.”

To determine if there was contributory negligence, the test should be: Was there anything in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time he alighted from the train which would have admonished a person of average prudence that to get off the train under the conditions then existing was dangerous? If so, the plaintiff should have desisted from alighting; and his failure so to desist was contributory negligence.

Whether Cangco is guilty of contributory negligence. – NO.

The allegation that Cangco was guilty of contributory negligence is drawn from the fact that he stepped off the train without being able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while the train was yet slowly moving.

But circumstances would show that there was no contributory negligence from his end. First, he was not aware of the fact that the obstruction caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform existed; and as Manila Railroad was bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, Cangco had a right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear.

Second, the place was dark or dimly lighted. This is also a proof of a failure upon the part of Manila Railroad in the performance of a duty owing by it to its passengers, for granting for the sake of argument that it indeed had the right to place the sacks in the path of alighting passengers, the said sacks would have been visible had there been adequate lighting.

Third, Cangco was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act — that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered.

And fourth, the place was perfectly familiar to Cangco as it was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where he was alighting.

Whether Manila Railroad should be held liable for Cangco’s injuries? – YES. 

What is the basis of Manila Railroad’s liability? -- BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, NOT VICARIOUS LIABILITY DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.

The foundation of the legal liability of Manila Railroad is the contract of carriage. The obligation to respond for the damage which Cangco had suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason of Manila Railroad’s failure to exercise due care in its performance. Vicarious liability of employers arising from the negligence of their employees vs. liability arising from breach of contract

DISSENTING OPINION

Malcolm, J.

The CFI’s ruling should be upheld. Cangco should not be entitled to any compensation because he is guilty of contributory negligence.

Concurs with the majority decision BUT ONLY on the following point made therein: "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.”

DOCTRINE

The contract to transport a person carries with it, by implication, the duty (of, say, a train company) to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains. That duty, being contractual, is direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant’s employees.