You are on page 1of 1

MANUEL DE GUIA, plaintiff vs.

THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT considered as a debtor in good faith due to its exercise of due diligence (CC Art.
COMPANY, defendant & appellant [1920] 1107). Thus, defendant’s liability is limited to damages that might be directly caused
by the physical injuries inflicted & w/c were in fact a necessary result of those
Facts: injuries.
Sept. 4, 1915, 8 p.m. 3. WON lower court erred in admitting as primary evidence the written
 de Guia, a physician & resident of Caloocan boarded a street-car (parang train ata statements of 4 physicians who examined de Guia. – YES.
‘to…) in Caloocan. He boarded a car at the end of the line. Physicians merely identified their signatures. These cannot be classified as primary
 30 meters from the starting point: car entered a switch, de Guia remained at the evidence since they’re of a hearsay nature. Physicians should have been asked to testify
back of the platform holding the handle of the right hand door in court. Their statements cannot be used considering that there had been no
 Upon coming out of the switch, small wheels of rear truck left the track eventually failure/exhaustion of memory.
shattering a concrete post at the left of the track. Defendant company claims it was 4. Damages claimed by de Guia:
caused by a stone somewhat larger than a goose egg lodged accidentally between  P900.00 award for loss of professional earnings sustained.
the rails.  P3,900.00 (health officer’s salary) denied since it’s way too speculative.
 As the car stopped, de Guia was thrown against the door w/some violence w/c  Damages for supposed incapacitation denied. Court has reason to believe that de
resulted to some bruises and probably some internal injuries. Guia wants to profit from the situation thus his promotion of the litigation. He made
 De Guia claims that he became unconscious due to the impact & he was taken to his use of his medical knowledge coupled w/the help of his professional associates to
house. Different physicians who checked on him had different testimonies. One make it appear that he has a strong case.
claimed that de Guia was walking while one said that he spit up blood due to the  Medical expenses: Limited to expenditures as were reasonably suited to the case.
bruises on his side. Signs of physical & nervous derangement were also observed. Defendant is only liable for the expenses incurred during the first check-up w/c
However, defendant presented some experts who testified that de Guia’s injuries amounts to P350. However, only P200 was paid by plaintiff thus, that is the only
were trivial & simulated. amount w/c the defendant company is obliged to pay. Obligation WRT other
physicians cannot be subj to recovery since:
De Guia filed a suit for damages wanting to claim the following: a. there’s no proof that these physicians charged for those services. They seem to
1. compensation for money lost due to his inability to properly attend to his be gratuitous services. Physician’s testimonies re their rates do not mean that
professional labors for 3 mos & his practice was suspended during that time de Guia did actually pay them.
2. P3,900.00 w/c he should have earned P3,900.00 as a district health officer in b. Court believes that de Guia employed many physicians to make sure of his
Occidental Negros where he was supposed to serve for 2 years earning P1,600.00 success in this litigation rather than to actually cure him.
per annum. He even added P350.00 as earnings from possible outside practice. Holding: Modified. de Guia entitled to P1,100.00 w/legal interest from Nov. 8, 1916.
3. P40,000.00 - P10k for his medical treatment and P30k for injuries w/c he claim
would incapacitate him for exercise of medical profession in the future. He claimed to
have numerous diseases.
*Breakdown for P10k medical expenses: P350 to Dr. Montes (doctor who first saw de
Guia) plus payment to 3 other physicians.

RTC: motorman negligent in maintaining a very rapid speed. P900.00 for loss of
professional earnings. P3,900.00 for supposed salary as a district health officer in
Occidental Negros. Total award amounts to P6,100.00

Issues & Ratio:
1. WON the motorman/car operator was negligent - YES
 Derailment is actually a fortuitous event as determined by cause. But operator’s
negligence cannot be denied. He was moving at point four speed (about 5-6 miles
per hour) but some witnesses observed that the train was moving at a higher rate
since the car was behind schedule. Another consideration would be the fact that the
car was practically empty.
 Main basis for imputing negligence: not so much because of the excessive speed but
the fact that the car was allowed to run a relatively long distance considering that
the front wheels of the rear truck were derailed. An experienced & attentive
motorman should have discovered that something was wrong & would have stopped.
2. WON the defendant company is liable - YES
 Liable for the damage resulting to de Guia due to the negligence. There was a
contractual relationship bet him & the company. Company was bound to convey &
deliver him safely & securely w/the degree of care required by law & custom (CC Art.
 Defense of exercise of due care in selection & instruction of operator (CC Art. 1903)
is immaterial because such is only applicable in negligence w/o contractual relation.
 However, the Court can moderate the company’s liability according to the
circumstances of the case (CC Art. 1103) especially since the company can be