Cangco vs.

Manila Railroad Company

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.