Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 Cangco
6 Cangco
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
769
1/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
770
2/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
melons and a large lot had been brought to the station for
shipment to the market. They were contained in numerous
tow sacks which had been piled on the platform in a row
one upon another. The testimony shows that this row of
sacks was so placed that there was a space of only about
two feet between the sacks of melons and the edge of the
platform and it is clear that the fall of the plaintiff was due
to the fact that his foot alighted upon one of these melons
at the moment he stepped upon the platform. His
statement that he failed to see these objects in the
darkness is readily to be credited.
The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an
unconscious condition, and it appeared that the injuries
which he had received were very serious. He was therefore
brought at once to a certain hospital in the city of Manila
where an examination was made and his arm was
amputated. The result of this operation was unsatisfactory,
and the plaintiff was then carried to another hospital
where a second operation was performed and the member
was again amputated higher up near the shoulder. It
appears in evidence that the plaintiff expended the sum of
P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for
other expenses in connection with the process of his
curation.
Upon August 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in
the Court of First Instanee of the city of Manila to recover
damages of the defendant company, founding his action
upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the
defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform
and in leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the
security of passenger alighting from the company's trains.
At the hearing in the Court of First Instance, his Honor,
the trial judge, found the facts substantially as above
771
771
3/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
772
4/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
773
5/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
774
6/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
775
upon to repair the damage and the one who, by his act or
omission, was the cause of it.
On the other hand, the liability of masters and
employers for the negligent acts or omissions of their
servants or agents, when such acts or omissions cause
damages which amount to the breach of a contract, is not
based upon a mere presumption of the master's negligence
in their selection or control, and proof of exercise of the
utmost diligence and care in this regard does not relieve
the master of his liability for the breach of his contract.
Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra
contractual or contractual. Extracontractual obligation has
its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties
which civilized society imposes upon its members, or which
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001526511811d9f3053e4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
776
8/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
777
9/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
to free him from his liability for the breach of his contract,
which involves the duty to exercise due care in the
preservation of the watch, if he shows that it was his
servant whose negligence caused the injury? If such a
theory could be accepted, juridical persons would enjoy
practically complete immunity from damages arising from
the breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts of
omission or commission on the part of their servants, as
such juridical persons can of necessity only act through
agents or servants, and it would no doubt be true in most
instances that reasonable care had been taken in the
selection and direction of such servants. 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 Hability 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?
This distinction between culpa aquiliana, as the source
778
778
10/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
779
11/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
780
12/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
781
13/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
782
14/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
783
15/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
784
16/17
1/22/2016
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038
785
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001526511811d9f3053e4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
17/17