JOSE CANGCO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

negligence or omission of his servants or agents caused the breach of the

contract would NOT constitute a defense to the action.
Vicarious liability of employers arising from the negligence of their employees vs. In the instant case, the facts averred show a contractual undertaking (contract
liability arising from breach of contract of carriage) by Manila Railroad for the benefit of Cangco, and it is alleged that
Manila Railroad failed to perform such contract. Given the circumstances, it is
CULPA EXTRA- CULPA CONTRACTUAL not necessary for Cangco to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of the
CONTRACTUAL / QUASI- (CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE) contract is due to willful fault or to negligence on the part of the Manila
DELICT (ER-EE) Railroad or of its employees. Proof of the contract and of its nonperformance is
Basis of liability Fault or negligence or Breach of contract sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery.
omission (first of the EE, The public policy justification for it is that if the negligence of servants or agents
which is then attributed to could be invoked as a means of discharging the liability arising from contract,
the ER) the anomalous result would be that a person acting through the medium of
Vinculum juris Fault or negligence or Contract agents or servants in the performance of their contracts would be in a better
omission itself position than those acting in person. In effect, juridical persons would enjoy
Nature of liability or Vicarious liability Principal direct and practically complete immunity from damages arising from the breach of their
obligation of ER immediate contracts if caused by negligent acts, given that juridical persons can of
Presumption Disputable presumption that No presumption of necessity only act through agents or employees, and it would no doubt be true
ER was not diligent in the negligence in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in selection and
selection and supervision of direction of such employees.
employees For example, if one delivers securities to a banking corporation as collateral,
How rebutted ER needs to show that he Common carrier exercised and they are lost by reason of the negligence of some clerk employed by the
exercised the diligence of a extraordinary diligence to bank, would it be just and reasonable to permit the bank to relieve itself of
good father of a family in the prevent breach liability for the breach of its contract to return the collateral upon the payment
selection and supervision of of the debt by proving that due care had been exercised in the selection and
EEs direction of the clerk? Definitely not -- the bank remains liable.
Burden of proof Plaintiff should prove that Plaintiff should only prove Even a review of jurisprudence would should that in no case has the Court ever
the damages were caused by that the contract exists and decided that the negligence of the defendant's servants has been held to
the negligent conduct of the that the defendant has constitute a defense to an action for damages for breach of contract.
defendant or his EEs breached it it is not
necessary for the plaintiff to Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of Cangco. NO.
prove negligence The allegation that Cangco was guilty of contributory negligence is drawn from
Statutory basis 2176; 2180 (CC) 1170; 1172; 1174 (CC) the fact that he stepped off the train without being able to discern clearly the
condition of the platform and while the train was yet slowly moving.
But circumstances would show that there was no contributory negligence from
his end. First, he was not awareof the fact that the obstruction caused by the
Whether Manila Railroad can posit the defense that it exercised due diligence of a sacks of melons piled on the platform existed; and as Manila Railroad was
good father in the selection and supervision of its employees to escape liability. bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers
NO. facilities for safe egress from its trains, Cangco had a right to assume, in the
In a case of negligence which presupposes the existence of a contractual absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform
obligation, the plaintiff should only prove that the contract exists and that the was clear.
defendant has breached itit is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove Second, the place was dark or dimly lighted. This is also a proof of a failure upon
negligence. As such, it is obvious that proof on the part of defendant that the the part of Manila Railroad in the performance of a duty owing by it to its