TORTS Case Digest Prepared by: Aggabao

40 – Cangco v Manila Railroad

TOPIC: PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
Court Supreme Court En Banc
Ponente Justice Fisher
Citation G.R. No. 12191
Date 14 October 1918
Petitioners Jose Cangco
Respondent Manila Railroad Co.
Relevant Codal Provision NCC, Article 2180
Case Doctrine Related to Topic
Legal liability arising from breach of contract is direct and immediate. This liability arising from breach of contract
essentially differs from the presumptive liability of employers for the negligence of its servants, imposed by article
1903 (now 2180) of the Civil Code. This presumptive liability can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in
the selection and supervision of employees, but such proof is not a defense to liability arising from breach of
contract.
Case Summary
Cangco was injured as he stepped off Manila Railroad’s train and onto Manila Railroad’s platform causing his arm
to be amputated. His fall was admittedly caused by sacs of watermelons placed on the defendant’s platform. In
filing an action for the recovery of damages from Manila Railroad Co., the CFI found that Cangco’s contributory
negligence of alighting the train without due caution prevented him from recovering damages from Manila Railroad.
The SC however, found that Manila Railroad’s liability is one arising from breach of contract: proof of exercise of
due care in the selection and supervision of its employees who were negligent in placing the watermelon sacs on
its platform cannot rebut such liability. Cangco’s contributory negligence is also not sufficient to bar him from
recovery as (1) he was ignorant of the fact that sacs of watermelon were located on Manila Railroad’s platform,
and (2) that alighting the train while it was barely moving but not at a full stop did not constitute negligence per se.
FACTS:
- Jose Cangco is an employee (clerk) of the Manila Railroad Company
- Cangco lived in San Mateo, Rizal, located upon their Company’s railroad, and went daily by train to Manila for
work
- He used a pass supplied by the company which entitled him to ride upon the company’s train free of charge

CANGCO’S ACCIDENT

- Cangco took the company train home on 20 January 1915

- As the train drew up the station on San Mateo, Cangco arose from his seat and took position upon the steps of the
coach to make his exit
- As the train slowed down, a passenger, Emilio Zuniga, also an employee of Manila Railroad, got off the same car,
alighting safely on the platform
- When the train proceeded a litte lfarther, Cangco stepped off, but one or both of his feet caught a sack of
watermelons on the platform so that his feet slipped under him
- He fell violently on the platform and from the platform rolled to and was drawn under the moving car
- His right arm was badly crushed and lacerated
- Cangco was taken to a hospital where his arm was amputated, the result of which was unsatisfactory. He was
carried to another hospital where a second operation, amputating his arm higher up near the shoulder, was
performed.
- Cangco instituted a proceeding to recover damages in the CFI of Manila

OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES

- The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening when the platform was dark and the station lit only
by a single dim light.
- Numerous sacks of watermelon have been piled on the platform as it was the customary season for harvesting.
The watermelons were placed only two feet from the edge of the platform.

CFI OF MANILA RULED IN FAVOR OF MANILA RAILROAD

- Negligence was attributable to Manila Railroad by reason of the placement of the sacks of melons, obstructing
passengers’ passing to and from the cars
- Nevertheless, Cangco himself failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded
from the recovery of damages.

ISSUE # 1 HELD - RATIO

Is the foundation of Manila Railroad The foundation of legal liability of the defendant is the contract of
Company’s liability contractual or carriage.
quasi-delict?
The obligation for damages arises from the breach of contract, in this

Page 1 of 2
TORTS Case Digest Prepared by: Aggabao
40 – Cangco v Manila Railroad
TOPIC: PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
case, Manila Railroad’s failure to exercise due care in its contractual
duty to transport passengers and to carry them in safety.

ISSUE #2 HELD - RATIO

Whether proof of diligence and care
in the selection and supervision of
their employees serve as a viable
defense to liability on the part of
Manila Railroad
NO. Presumptive liability under Article 1903 (now 2180) can be rebutted
by proof of the exercise of due care in the selection and supervision of
employees, but such proof is not a defense to liability arising from
breach of contract.
Manila Railroad’s legal liability arising from breach of contract is direct
and immediate. This liability arising from breach of contract essentially
differs from the presumptive liability of employers for the negligence of
its servants, imposed by article 1903 (now 2180) of the Civil Code. This
presumptive liability can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care
in the selection and supervision of employees, but such proof is not a
defense to liability arising from breach of contract.

The presumption imposed by Article 1903 (now 2180), and its

susceptibility of being rebutted by proof of exercise of due care, applies
only to extra-contractual relations.

The Supreme Court here, discusses in length, distinctions between

obligations arising from breach of contract, and those arising from
quasi-delict.

ISSUE #3 HELD - RATIO

Whether Cangco’s supposed NO.
contributory negligence prevents
him from recovering damages from The only fact of negligence on the part of Cangco was that he stepped
Manila Railroad off the car without being able to discern clearly the condition of the
platform and while the train was yet slowly moving. It should not be
overlooked that Cangco was ignorant of the existence of the sacs of
melons piled on the platform. As Manila Railroad is duty bound as a
public carrier to afford its passengers safe ingress and egress from its
trains, Cangco had a right to assume that the platform was kept clear.

Classifying as negligence per se Cangco’s alighting from the car while it

was slowing down but not at a full stop is too broadly stated and is at
variance with everyday life. Cangco alighted when the train was barely
moving. Similarly, thousands of persons alight from trains under the
same conditions every day of the year while sustaining no injury.

That the place was dark and dimly lighted is also proof of Manila
Railroad’s negligence.

RULING:
The decision of the lower court is reversed and judgment is hereby rendered plaintiff (Cangco) the sum of P3,290.25,
and for the costs of both instances. So ordered.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

JUSTICE MALCOLM, dissenting:

The Manila Railroad Co. should be absolved from the complaint: (1) Had the plaintiff waited until the train had come to
a full stop before alighting, the injury would not have occurred, and (2) an attempt to alight from a moving train is
negligence per se.

Page 2 of 2