You are on page 1of 5

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PATULOT, October 5, JERRAEMIE NIKKA C. 2012

October 14, 1918 G.R. No. L-12191 JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee. TOPIC: Torts distinguished from Breach of Contract FACTS:

1. Jose Cangco was an employee of Manila Railroad Company as a clerk (P25/ month). Upon going to the company he used a pass, supplied by the respondent which entitled him to ride in the companys rain for free. 2. When Cangco was returning home from work and as the train drew up at the station of San Mateo, Cangco while making his exit, took his position but on the side of the train there is a cement platform which begins to rise with a moderate gradient some distance away from the respondent company. 3. There is another passenger and also an employee of the respondent company who alighted from the train safely however, when it is time for Cangco to get off from the train one or both of his feet came contact with a sacks of melon which resulted for him to fall and since the train was still moving then. His right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. 4. The accident happened on a dark night. The said station was lit by a single light. The sacks of melons were on the platform because it was customary season for harvesting melons and most of it was brought to the station for shipment to the market. Since there were sacks of melons on the platform there was only two feet between the sacks of the melons and the edge of the platform and the accident happened because the foot of Cangco alighted upon one of these melons for according to him he did not see the melons for it was dark on that time. 5. Because of the accident Cangco was brought to the hospital where his arm was amputated but there was a need for another operation so he was brought to another hospital where his arm was amputated higher near the shoulder. 6. Cangco filed a complaint to recover damages against the respondent contending that 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 train.

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PATULOT, October 5, JERRAEMIE NIKKA C. 2012

7. CFI: There was negligence on the part of respondents servants and employees by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, yet the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from recovering. In favor of the respondent. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBLIGATION ARISING FROM TORTS AND BREACH OF CONTRACT BREACH OF CONTRACT HAPPENS (a) The breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party. (b) the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation TORT ARISES (a) In cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris.

ITO NAINTINDIHAN KO

NOTE: I believe that the obligation in this case arises from a contract of carriage, Since there is a breach of contract on the part of the respondent there is no need to prove that there is a negligence on their part for the fact that the respondent company did not fulfill its obligation by transporting safely its passenger to its destination a vinculum juris exists already or the respondent is already obligated to pay for whatever damages that the Cangco suffered or incurred. On the other hand obligation arises from quasi delict, if there is negligence. So it is right for me to say that if there is no contract between parties, obligation arises if there is negligence and that negligence result to the injury of the other party.

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PATULOT, October 5, JERRAEMIE NIKKA C. 2012

DEFINITION OF TERMS

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PATULOT, October 5, JERRAEMIE NIKKA C. 2012

(1) QUASI CONTRACT

An obligation that the law creates in the absence of an agreement between the parties

(2) EXTRA CONTRACTUAL CULPA

Always based upon a voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another

(3) Juris Tantum

prima facie, rebuttable or disputable presumption or those which may be overcome or disproved.

(4) Juris Et De Jure

conclusive or those which the law does not allow to be contradicted

(5) Extra-contractual obligation

has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society to others

(6) Vinculum Juris MALCOLM, [dissent]

A tie that legally binds one person to another

- With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of full accord, namely, "It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred." With the general rule relative to a passenger's contributory negligence, we are likewise in full accord, namely, "An attempt to alight from a moving train is negligence per se." Adding these two points together, we have the logical result - the Manila Railroad Co. should be absolved from the complaint, and judgment affirmed.

ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceding article is enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions but also for those persons for whom another is responsible. OTHER INFORMATION (a) The employees of the railroad company were guilty of negligence in piling these sacks on the

TORTS AND DAMAGES

PATULOT, October 5, JERRAEMIE NIKKA C. 2012

platform. Their presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train; and that they constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It follows that the defendant company is liable for the damage unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence (b) NOTE: The foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage, and that the obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance BUT it can be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision (c) In Bahia vs. Litonjua and Leynes, an action is brought upon the theory of the extracontractual liability of the defendant to respond for the damage caused by the carelessness of his employee while acting within the scope of his employment The Court, after citing the last paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, said: (1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and (2) that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. (d) Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-contractual or contractual. Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties, which the existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. The breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party.