Cangco vs.

Manila Railroad Company

No. 12191, October 14, 1918

FISHER, J.: (Negligence by employee

attributable to employer even in contractual
breach)

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.