TRANSPORTATION Prepared by: POLVORA, Mark Alfred T.

28 – Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.

TOPIC: Common Carriers: Nature and Basis of Liabilities
Citation G.R. No 12191; 38 Phil. 768
Date October 14, 1918
Relevant Codal Art. 1733 – Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public
Provision policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the
safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734,
1735 and 1745, Nos. 5,6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the
passengers is further set forth in Articles 1755 and 1756.
Case Doctrine/s Related to Topic
1. The obligation arising from the failure in the performance of a contract of carriage is direct and immediate.
2. A common carrier is precluded from raising the defense of the observance of diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees when the cause of action arises from a breach of a contract of carriage.
Case Summary
Cangco was an employee at the Manila Railroad and gets a free pass to ride the train. One day, upon stepping off
the platform, he stepped on a sack of watermelons, fell on the platform, and his arm was crushed. Cangco sued
MR
based on the negligence of its employees in leaving the watermelons on the platform. The Court held that the
negligence of the employees constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by Cangco. Foundation
of MR’s liability was the contract of carriage, and obligation to respond for the damage arose from breach of failing
to exercise due care in its performance. Because of this, the liability of Manila Road was direct and immediate, and
can be rebutted by proof of its exercise of due care in their selection and supervision.

FACTS:
1. Jose Cangco, a clerk in the Manila Railrooad Company (MRR), road one of MRR’s trains to work daily
○ He was given a pass which entitled him to ride the company’s trains free of charge
2. Around 7 or 8pm of January 20, 1915, he rode MRR’s train on his way back home
○ As the train drew up to the station in San Mateo (his stop), he rose from his seat and made his way to the
to the door of the train
○ Another passenger went down ahead of him while the train was just slowing down
○ Cangco then stepped off the train
○ Unfortunately, one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons on the platform\
■ It was the customary season for harvesting these melons and these were brought to the station
for shipment to the market
■ The sacks were so placed that there was only about 2 feet between the row of sacks and the
edge of the platform
○ His feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform
○ His body rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car
○ After he alighted, the train car moved forward for another 6 meters before it came to a full stop
3. Because of this incident his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated
○ His right arm was operated upon and amputated
○ His right arm was operated again since the first operation was unsatisfactory
○ He incurred ₱790.25 as medical and surgical fees
4. He filed a claim to recover damages from MRR due to the Negligence of the servants and employees of MRR in
placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of
passenger alighting from the company’s trains
○ CFI ruled that Cangco was precluded from recovering from MRR since he failed to use due caution in
alighting from the coach while it was still moving

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 HELD
Whether or not MRR is liable for damages due to the negligence of YES, MRR’s employees were guilty of
its employees negligence in piling the sacks of
melons on the platform
RATIO
1. The presence of the sacks on the platform, due to the negligence of MRR’s employees, was the
effective legal cause of Cangco’s injuries
2. Court differentiated obligations arising from extra-contractual relations and from breaches of contractual
relations

Page 1 of 2
TRANSPORTATION Prepared by: POLVORA, Mark Alfred T.
28 – Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.
TOPIC: Common Carriers: Nature and Basis of Liabilities
Culpa Aquiliana (Extra-contractual)
There is presumptive responsibility of the employer
for the negligence of its servants or that he, himself,
is presumptively negligent for the selection OR
direction (or both) of the servant; presumption is juris
tantum hence may be rebutted
Negligence of employer is rebuttable by his exercise
of due diligence in their selection and supervision, as
long as the damage does not amount to a breach of
contract between the master and the person injured
Culpa, substantive and independent, w/c of itself
constitutes the source of an obligation between
persons not formally connected by any legal tie
Based on a principle that imposes upon all persons
who by their fault or negligence, do injury to another,
the obligation of making good the damage caused
Liability here is always based upon a voluntary act or
omission, which, without willful intent, but by
negligence, has caused damage to another
Has its source in the breach or omission of mutual
duties which civilized society imposes upon its
members or duties that are not contractual
It is the wrongful or negligent act or omissions itself
which creates the vinculum juris
Burden of proof rests on creditor-plaintiff to prove the
negligence else the action fails
Culpa Contractual
Liability of employer is direct and immediate (e.g.
contract of carriage)
Defense of due diligence cannot be used
Culpa considered as an accident in the
performance of an obligation already existing
(Rakes v Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co.)
Based, as in the English Common Law, upon
principle of respondeat superior, where master is
liable in every case and unconditionally
Liability is based on the non-performance of the
obligations imposed in the contract
Has its source in the contract entered into by the
parties
Vinculum juris exists independently of the breach
of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties in
the contract
Proof of the contract and of its non-performance
by the debtor-employer is prima facie case of
negligence or willful fault of the employer and
non-performance cannot be excused by proof
that he exercised due diligence and that the fault
was due to his servants

3. The foundation of MRR’s legal liability is the contract of carriage and that the obligation to respond for the
damage which Cangco has suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of
MRR to exercise due care to its performance
○ MRR’s liability is direct and immediate
○ MRR cannot raise the defense that it observed diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees
since the same can only be raised in obligations arising from extra-contractual source
4. Court found the following as the negligent acts of MRR which caused damage to Cangco:
○ Failed to ensure that the platform was clear of any obstructions
○ Failed to maintain a well-lit platform which caused Cangco’s failure to see the obstructions in the platform

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #2 HELD
Whether or not Cangco is guilty of contributory negligence NO, Cangco is not guilty of
contributory negligence
RATIO
1. The train was barely moving when Cangco alighted from the same
2. Thousands of persons alight from trains under these conditions and sustain no injury
○ The main cause of the Cangco’s injury is the obstructions in the platform
3. In determining the question of contributory negligence, the age, sex and physical condition of the person should
be considered
○ In considering the age, sex and physical condition of Cangco, his act of alighting while the train was still
moving was not characterized by imprudence

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the lower court is reversed. The award of ₱3,290.25 is
rendered to Cangco.

Page 2 of 2