Scribd
Upload
667 views2 pages

Cangco v. Manila Railway

This case involved Jose Cangco who was injured when he stepped off a train operated by Manila Railroad Company and stepped on a sack of watermelons left on the platform by railroad employees. Cangco sued for damages, alleging negligence. The Court ruled that Manila Railroad breached its obligation to safely transport passengers by allowing obstructions to be placed on the platform. While negligence actions typically require proving fault, the basis of liability in this case was the transportation contract, not negligence. The Court found Cangco was not contributorily negligent as it was his daily routine and the circumstances did not show reckless behavior. The trial court's decision was reversed.

Uploaded by

Harvey Leo Romano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
667 views2 pages

Cangco v. Manila Railway

This case involved Jose Cangco who was injured when he stepped off a train operated by Manila Railroad Company and stepped on a sack of watermelons left on the platform by railroad employees. Cangco sued for damages, alleging negligence. The Court ruled that Manila Railroad breached its obligation to safely transport passengers by allowing obstructions to be placed on the platform. While negligence actions typically require proving fault, the basis of liability in this case was the transportation contract, not negligence. The Court found Cangco was not contributorily negligent as it was his daily routine and the circumstances did not show reckless behavior. The trial court's decision was reversed.

Uploaded by

Harvey Leo Romano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

G.R. No. L-12191, 14 October 1918


FISHER, J.:

Doctrine: 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.

Nature of Action: Appeal on pure question of law

FACTS:

Jose Cangco was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo,
in the province of Rizal, which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company; and in coming
daily by train to the company’s office in the city of Manila where he worked, he used a pass, supplied by
the company, which entitled him to ride upon the company’s trains free of charge.

During his ride in the train he arose from his seat and makes his way to the exit while the train is still on
travel. When the train has proceeded a little farther Jose Cangco step down into the cement platform
but unfortunately step in to a sack of watermelon, fell down and rolled under the platform and was
drawn under the moving car which resulting to his arm to be crashed and lacerated. He was rushed to
the hospital and sued the company and the employee who put the sack of watermelon in the platform.

The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o’ clock on the dark night. It is that time of the year that may we
considered as season to harvest watermelon explaining why there are sacks of watermelon in the
platform. The plaintiff contends that it is the negligence of the Manila Railroad Co. on why they let their
employees put a hindrance in the platform that may cause serious accident. The defendant answered
that it is the lack of diligence on behalf of the plaintiff alone on why he did not wait for the train to stop
before alighting the train.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the company breached their obligation or there is a contributory negligence on behalf of
the plaintiff.

Held: The Court ruled that there is a breach of contract against Manila Railroad. 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy