OBLICON CASE 01 - De Guia v.
Manila Electric Co
MANUEL DE GUIA, plaintiff vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD &
LIGHT COMPANY, defendant & appellant [1920]
Facts:
Sept. 4, 1915, 8 p.m.
 de Guia, a physician & resident of Caloocan boarded a street-car
(parang train ata ‘to…) in Caloocan. He boarded a car at the end of the
line.
 30 meters from the starting point: car entered a switch, de Guia
remained at the back of the platform holding the handle of the right hand
door
 Upon coming out of the switch, small wheels of rear truck left the
track eventually shattering a concrete post at the left of the track.
Defendant company claims it was caused by a stone somewhat larger
than a goose egg lodged accidentally between the rails.
 As the car stopped, de Guia was thrown against the door w/some
violence w/c resulted to some bruises and probably some internal injuries.
 De Guia claims that he became unconscious due to the impact & he
was taken to his house. Different physicians who checked on him had
different testimonies. One claimed that de Guia was walking while one
said that he spit up blood due to the bruises on his side. Signs of physical
& nervous derangement were also observed. However, defendant
presented some experts who testified that de Guia’s injuries were trivial &
simulated.
De Guia filed a suit for damages wanting to claim the following:
1. compensation for money lost due to his inability to properly attend to
his professional labors for 3 mos & his practice was suspended during that
time
2. P3,900.00 w/c he should have earned P3,900.00 as a district health
officer in Occidental Negros where he was supposed to serve for 2 years
earning P1,600.00 per annum. He even added P350.00 as earnings from
possible outside practice.
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. 1258).
 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 considered as a debtor in good faith due to its exercise of due
diligence (CC Art. 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 injuries.
3. WON lower court erred in admitting as primary evidence the
written statements of 4 physicians who examined de Guia. – YES.
Physicians merely identified their signatures. These cannot be classified as
primary evidence since they’re of a hearsay nature. Physicians should have
been asked to testify in court. Their statements cannot be used considering
that there had been no failure/exhaustion of memory.
4. Damages claimed by de Guia:
 P900.00 award for loss of professional earnings sustained.
 P3,900.00 (health officer’s salary) denied since it’s way too
speculative.
 Damages for supposed incapacitation denied. Court has reason to
believe that de Guia wants to profit from the situation thus his promotion
of the litigation. He made use of his medical knowledge coupled w/the
help of his professional associates to make it appear that he has a strong
case.
 Medical expenses: Limited to expenditures as were reasonably suited
to the case. Defendant is only liable for the expenses incurred during the
first check-up w/c amounts to P350. However, only P200 was paid by
plaintiff thus, that is the only amount w/c the defendant company is
obliged to pay. Obligation WRT other physicians cannot be subj to
recovery since:
a. there’s no proof that these physicians charged for
those services. They seem to be gratuitous services. Physician’s
testimonies re their rates do not mean that de Guia did actually pay
them.
b. Court believes that de Guia employed many
physicians to make sure of his success in this litigation rather than to
actually cure him.
OBLICON CASE 01 - De Guia v. Manila Electric Co
Holding: Modified. de Guia entitled to P1,100.00 w/legal interest from Nov. 8,
1916.