DE GUIA V. MANILA ELECTRIC, 5.2 Did the trial judge err in the awarding of the 3.

err in the awarding of the 3. YES, the defendant is liable for the damages
damages for inability to accept a position as a Ratio/ Reasoning Upon failure to comply with that
RAILROAD & LIGHT CO
district health officer? obligation arising from the contract, the company
STREET; Jan. 28, 1920 5.3 Did the trial judge err in not awarding damages incurred the liability defined in articles 1103-1107 of
for the plaintiff’s supposed incapacitation for the Civil Code.
NATURE future professional practice (P30,000)?
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First 5.4 Is the plaintiff reasonable in demanding 4. No, the defendant could not avail of the last
Instance of Manila. P10,000 for the cost of medical treatment and paragraph of Art 1903
other expenses incident to his cure? Ratio/ Reasoning The last paragraph of article 1903
FACTS 6. WON the trial judge erred in treating written of the civil code refers to liability incurred by
-The plaintiff is a physician residing in Caloocan City. statements of the physicians who testified as primary negligence in the absence of contractual relation,
-Sept 4, 1915, at about 8pm, the defendant boarded evidence? that is, to the culpa aquiliana of the civil law and not
a car at the end of the line with the intention of to liability incurred by breach of contract; therefore,
coming to Caloocan. HELD it is irrelevant to prove that the defendant company
-At about 30 meters from the starting point the car 1. NO, the existence of negligence in the had exercised due care in the selection and
entered a switch, the plaintiff remaining on the back operation of the car must be sustained, as not instruction of the motorman who was in charge of its
platform holding the handle of the right-hand door. being clearly contrary to the evidence. car and that he was in experienced and reliable
Upon coming out of the switch, the small wheels of Ratio An experienced and attentive motorman servant.
the rear truck left the track ran for a short distance should have discovered that something was wrong
and hit a concrete post. and would have stopped before he had driven the car 5. The defendant is liable for the damages
-the post was shattered: at the time the car struck over the entire distance from the point where the ordinary recoverable for the breach of
against the concrete post, the plaintiff was allegedly wheels left the track to the place where the post was contractual obligation, against a person who
standing on the rear platform, grasping the handle of struck. has acted in good faith, which could be
the right-hand door. The shock of the impact threw Reasoning The motorman alleged that he reduced reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation
him forward, and the left part of his chest struck his speed to the point that the car barely entered the is contracted.
against the door causing him to fall. In the falling, the switch under its own momentum, and this operation Ratio The extent of the liability for the breach of a
plaintiff alleged that his head struck one of the seats was repeated as he passed out. Upon getting again contract must be determined in the light of the
and he became unconscious. on the straight track he put the control successively situation in existence at the time the contract is
-the plaintiff was taken to his home which was a at points one, two, three and lastly at point four. At made; and the damages ordinarily recoverable are in
short distance away from the site of the incident. A the moment when the control was placed at point all events limited to such as might be reasonably
physician of the defendant company visited the four he perceived that the rear wheels were derailed foreseen in the light of the facts then known to the
plaintiff and noted that the plaintiff was walking and applied the brake; but at the same instant the contracting parties.
about and apparently suffering somewhat from car struck the post, some 40 meters distant from the Reasoning The court has the power to moderate
bruises on his chest. The plaintiff said nothing about exit of the switch. However, testimonial evidence liability according to the circumstances of the case,
his head being injured and refused to go to a alleged that the rate of a car propelled by electricity i.e. when the defendant must answer for the
hospital. with the control at point "four" should be about five consequences of the negligence of its employees.
-The plaintiff consulted other physicians about his or 6 miles per hour (around 8 kph) and other Also, an employer who has displayed due diligence in
condition, and all these physicians testified for the evidence showed that the car was behind schedule choosing and instructing his servants is entitled to be
plaintiff in the trial court. time and that it was being driven, after leaving the considered a debtor in good faith (w/n meaning of
-the plaintiff was awarded with P6,100, with interest switch, at a higher rate than would ordinarily be article 1107, old CC)
and costs, as damages incurred by him in indicated by the control at point four. The car was
consequence of physical injuries sustained. The practically empty (so it’s possible that it could run 5.1. NO, the trial judge was liberal enough to
plaintiff and the defendant company appealed. faster???). The court granted that there is negligence the plaintiff.
as shown by the distance which the car was allowed Reasoning As a result of the incident, the plaintiff
ISSUES to run with the front wheels of the rear truck was unable to properly attend his professional labors
1. WON the defendant has disproved the existence of derailed, aside from the fact that the car was running for 3 months and suspend his practice for that
negligence in an excessive speed. period. By testimonial evidence, his customary
2. What is the nature of the relation between the income, as a physician, was about P300/month. So
parties? 2. The relation between the parties was of a the trial judge accordingly allowed P900 as damages
3. WON the defendant is liable for the damages contractual nature. for loss of earnings.
4. If liable for damages, WON the defendant could Ratio The company was bound to convey and deliver
avail of the last paragraph of Art 1903 on culpa the plaintiff safely and securely with reference to the 5.2 YES. The trial judge erred in awarding such
aquiliana (Art 2180) degree of care which, under the circumstances, is damages.
5. What is the extent of the defendant’s liability? required by law and custom applicable to the case. Ratio Damage of this character could not, at the
5.1 Did the trial judge err in the awarding of the Reasoning The plaintiff had boarded the car as a time of the accident, have been foreseen by the
damages for loss of professional earnings passenger for the city of Manila and the company delinquent party as a probable consequence of the
(P900)? undertook to convey him for hire. injury inflicted.
Reasoning The representative from Negros -On the obligation supposedly incurred by the
Occidental has supposedly asked Dr. Montinola to plaintiff to three other physicians: (1) it does not
nominate the plaintiff as district health officer of appear that said physicians have in fact made
Negros Occidental for two years, with a salary of charges for those services with the intention of
P1,600 per annum and a possible outside practice imposing obligations on the plaintiff to pay them; (2)
worth of P350. However, even if true, the damages in employing so many physicians the plaintiff must
were too speculative to be the basis of recovery in a have had in view the successful promotion of the
civil action. issue of this lawsuit rather than the bona fide
purpose of effecting the cure of his injuries.
5.3 NO. the trial court was fully justified in
rejecting the exaggerated estimate of damages 6. YES, certificates or the written statements
allegedly created. of the physicians which were referred to in the
Ratio/ Reasoning The plaintiff alleged, even trial cannot be admitted as primary evidence
showing testimonial evidences from numerous since it is fundamentally of a hearsay nature
medical experts, that he developed infarct of the Ratio The only legitimate use of certificates could be
liver and traumatic neurosis, accompanied by put, as evidence for plaintiff, was to allow the
nervousness, vertigo, and other disturbing symptoms physician who issued it to refer thereto, to refresh his
of a serious and permanent character, and these memory upon details which he might have forgotten
manifestations of disorder rendered him liable to a
host of other dangerous diseases, and that DECI
restoration to health could only be accomplished Judgment from the trial court modified by reducing
after long years of complete repose. the amount of the recovery to P1,100, with legal
-The medical experts introduced by the defendant interest from Nov. 8, 1916 (all judges – 6 (ponente
testified however that the plaintiff’s injuries, counted) – concurred)
considered in their physical effects, were trivial and
that the attendant nervous derangement, with its
complicated train of ailments, was merely simulated.
-According to the court, the evidence showed that
immediately after the incident the plaintiff, sensing
in the situation a possibility of profit, devoted himself
with great assiduity to the promotion of this
litigation; and with the aid of his own professional
knowledge, supplemented by suggestions obtained
from his professional friends and associates, he
enveloped himself more or less unconsciously in an
atmosphere of delusion which rendered him
incapable of appreciating at their true value the
symptoms of disorder which he developed.

5.4 No. He is only justified with P200, or the

amount actually paid to Dr. Montes (the doctor
who treated the plaintiff) which is the
obligation supposedly incurred with respect to
treatment for said injuries.
Ratio In order to constitute a proper element of
recovery in an action of this character, the medical
service for which reimbursement is claimed should
not only be such as to have created a legal obligation
upon the plaintiff but such as was reasonably
necessary in view of his actual condition.
Reasoning Dr. Montes, in his testimony, speaks in
the most general terms with respect to the times and
extent of the services rendered; and it is not clear
that those services which were rendered many
months, or year, after the incident had in fact any
necessary or legitimate relation to the injuries
received by the plaintiff.