Topic: Nature and Basis of Liability
culpa aquiliana)
Case No.: G.R. No. L-12191 | October 14, 1918 | J. Fisher
Case Name: Jose Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.
Doctrine: The contract of transportation of MRR to transport Cangco carried with it, by
implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and
leaving its trains. That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-
performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to
defendant MRR's servants.
RELEVANT FACTS
Jose Cangco was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company. He used to travel by
train to the office located in Manila for free. 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, 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. The accident occurred
between 7 and 8 o’ clock on a dark night.
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. CFI ruled in favor of MRR stating that although negligence was
attributable to MRR because the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct
passengers alighting from the train, nevertheless, Cangco himself had failed to use due
caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from recovering
damages.
ISSUES/RATIO DECIDENDI
W/N MRR should be held liable? YES.
The contract of transportation of MRR to transport Cangco carried with it, by implication,
the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its
trains. That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate.
The Court differentiated cupla aquiliana from culpa contractual
Culpa aquiliana is applicable when the act or injury is understood to be those not growing
out of pre-existing duties of the parties to one another. But where relations already
formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi-contract, then
breaches of those duties are in the nature of culpa contractual.
The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character (i.e.
and those which arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual
obligation 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 sufficient 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
Was there contributory negligence on the part of Cangco? NO.
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. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a
common practice and a lot of people are doing so every day without suffering injury.
Cangco has 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. He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of watermelons were there
as there were no appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit.
DISPOSITIVE
The decision of lower court is reversed, and judgment is hereby rendered plaintiff for the
sum of P3,290.25, and for the costs of both instances. So ordered.
J. Malcom, Dissenting: With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of full accord,
namely, "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." With
the general rule relative to a passenger's contributory negligence, we are likewise in full
accord, namely, "An attempt to alight from a moving train is negligence per se." Adding
these two points together, should be absolved from the complaint, and judgment
affirmed