UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Transpo

E2024 Professor Reyes

Del Prado v. Meralco
G.R. No. 29462 – March 7, 1929
En banc | Street, J.

Topic: Common Carriage of Passengers; Duration of Responsibility

Parties:
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Ignacio Del Prado Manila Electric Co. (Meralco)

FACTS OF THE CASE

Meralco operated street cars in Manila for the conveyance of passengers. One morning, Florenciano,
Meralco’s motorman, was in charge of running a car from east to west on a certain street. After it stopped at
the appointed place for taking on and letting off passengers, it resumed its course at a moderate speed under
Florenciano’s guidance. The car proceeded only a short distance when Del Prado ran across the street to catch
the car, his approach being made from the left. The car had an entrance and exit at either end, and Del Prado’s
movement was so timed that he arrived at the front entrance at the moment when the car was passing.

Del Prado and Guevara (a witness) testified that Del Prado raised his hand upon approaching the car as an
indication to Florenciano of his desire to board, in response to which Florenciano eased up a little, without
stopping. Upon this, Del Prado seized the front handpost with his hand and simultaneously placed his foot
upon the platform; however, before his position became secure, Florenciano applied power, making the car
lurch and Del Prado’s foot to slip and his hand jerk loose form the handpost. He fell to the ground, and his
other foot was crushed by the moving car. The next day, said foot had to be amputated. Florenciano, on the
other hand, stated that he did not see Del Prado attempt to board the car, nor did he accelerate the car as
Guevara claimed. He claimed not to have known of the incident until after Del Prado had been hurt and
someone called to him to stop.

Del Prado instituted an action to recover damages against Meralco for the injuries in the CFI of Manila. The
CFI ruled in Del Prado’s favor, prompting Meralco to appeal.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N Meralco is liable for Del Prado’s injuries—YES.
• While a street railway company like Meralco has no obligation to stop its cars to let on intending
passengers at other points than those appointed for stoppage, it is the motorman’s duty to do no act
that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff’s peril while he was attempting to board the car.
The premature acceleration was a breach of this duty.
o The relation between a carrier of passengers for hire and its patrons is of a contractual nature,
and a failure on the part of the carrier to use due care in carrying its passengers safely is a
breach of duty under the Civil Code. This duty extends to persons boarding and alighting the
cars.
• Meralco pleaded as a special defense that it had used all the diligence of a good father of family to
prevent the damage suffered by the plaintiff, but this proof is irrelevant as the liability involved was
derived from a breach of obligation under Art. 1101 of the CC and related provisions (culpa
contractual which involves a breach of positive obligation instead of culpa aquiliana which is a mere
tort; defense of bonus pater familias is not available if the liability arises form breach of contractual
duty)
• The contributory negligence of Del Prado should be treated as a mitigating circumstance under Art.
1103 of the CC. It is obvious that Del Prado’s negligence in attempting to board the moving car was
not the proximate cause of the injury; the proximate cause was Florenciano’s act in putting on the
power prematurely.
o A person boarding a moving car must be taken to assume the risk of injury form boarding the
car under the conditions open to his view, but he cannot fairly be held to assume the risk that
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Transpo
E2024 Professor Reyes
the motorman, having the situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the speed of
the car before he is planted safely on the platform.

RULING
Appealed judgment affirmed and modified by reducing the recovery to the sum of P2,500.

SEPARATE OPINION/S
Johnson, J. [dissenting]
• Judgment of the lower court should be revoked for the ff:
o The motorman managed the car carefully and with ordinary prudence at the moment the
alleged accident occurred;
o The appellee acted with imprudence and lack of due care in attempting to board a street car
while the same was in motion; and
o That he contributed to his own injury, without an[y] negligence, malice or imprudence on the
part of the defendant.
• There is nothing in the record which remotely justifies a contribution of damages between the
appellee and the appellant; appellee should be required to suffer the damages which he himself
occasioned.

NOTES