FACTS

On September 30, 1905, Sunday

afternoon, Plaintiff David Taylor, 15 years of
age, the son of a mechanical engineer, more
mature than the average boy of his age, and
having considerable aptitude and training in
mechanics, together with a boy named
Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of age,
crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor,
for the purpose of visiting Murphy, an
employee of the defendant company Manila
Electric Railroad and Light Company, who
promised to make them a cylinder for a
miniature engine.
After leaving the powerplant, they walked across the
open space where the company dumped in the
cinders and ashes from its furnaces, they found some
twenty to thirty brass fulminating caps scattered on the
ground.

These caps are approximately of the size and

appearance of small pistol cartridges and each has
attached to it 2 long thin wires by means of which it
may be discharged by the use of electricity.

They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting

charges of dynamite, and have in themselves a
considerable explosive power the boys picked up all
they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took
end, and carried them home.
After crossing the footbridge, they met Jessie Adrian,
less than 9 years old, and then they went to Manuel's
home.

The boys then made a series of experiments with the

caps like thrusting the ends of the wires into an electric
light socket, breaking the cap with a stone, which
resulted no reaction. Then they successfully opened
one of the caps with a knife, and upon finding that it
was filled with a yellowish substance they got matches.

David held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted

match to the contents.
An explosion followed, causing more or less serious
injuries to all three.

Jessie, who when the boys proposed putting a match

to the contents of the cap, became frightened and
started to run away, received a slight cut in the neck.

Manuel had his hand burned and wounded.

David was struck in the face by several particles of the

metal capsule, one of which injured his right eye to
such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the
surgeons.
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT
The trial court ruled in favor the plaintiff. They
based their ruling upon the provisions of Article
1908 of the Civil Code:

Art. 1908. The owners shall be liable for the

damages caused –

1. By the explosion of machines which may

not have been cared for with due diligence,
and for kindling of explosive substance which
may not have been placed in a safe and
proper place.
ISSUE:

Whether Manila Electric Railroad and Light

Company is liable for damages based on
Quasi-Delict?
RULING:

NO, the defendant is not liable.

Under the generally accepted doctrine in

the US, in order to establish his right to a
recovery, the plaintiff must establish by
competent evidence:

1. Damages to the plaintiff.

2. Negligence by act or omission of which
defendant personally, or some person for
whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
3. The connection of cause and effect
between the negligence and the damage.
The negligence in leaving the caps exposed
on its premises was not the proximate cause
of the injury received.

The act of the plaintiff in cutting open the

detonating cap and putting a lighted match
to its contents was the proximate cause of the
explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted
upon him.
True, the plaintiff may not have known and probably
did not know the precise nature of the explosion which
might be expected from the ignition of the contents of
the cap, and of course he did not anticipate the
resultant injuries which he incurred; but he well knew
that a more or less dangerous explosion might be
expected from his act, and yet he willfully, recklessly,
and knowingly produced the explosion.

It would be going far to say that "according to his

maturity and capacity" he exercised such and "care
and caution" as might reasonably be required of him,
or that defendant or anyone else should be held civilly
responsible for injuries incurred by him under such
circumstances.
The plaintiff was sui juris in the sense that his age
and his experience qualified him to understand
and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of
that degree of caution which would have avoided
the injury which resulted from his own deliberate
act; and that the injury incurred by him must be
held to have been the direct and immediate result
of his own willful and reckless act, so that while it
may be true that these injuries would not have
been incurred but for the negligence act of the
defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its
premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the
proximate and principal cause of the accident
which inflicted the injury.
Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company
is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus
incurred.
FACTS:

On September 2, 1974, a Philippine Rabbit Bus

bumped and hit Pedro Tayag Sr. was riding on a
bicycle along MacArthur Highway at Bo. San Rafael,
Tarlac driven by Romeo Villa, as a result of which he
sustained injuries which caused his instantaneous
death.

A complaint for damages was instituted against the

defendants. In the subsequent criminal case against
the driver, Romeo Villa was acquitted of the crime of
homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Thereafter, the trial court judge dismissed the civil
case for damages.
ISSUE:

Whether the civil case based on Quasi-Delict

should be barred by the acquittal in a criminal
case?
RULING:

NO. The order of dismissal by the trial court

judge is incorrect.

The Civil Code provides under Art. 31. When

the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of
as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings
and regardless of the result of the latter.
All the essential averments for a quasi
delictual action are present, namely:

(1) an act or omission constituting fault or

negligence on the part of private respondent;
(2) damage caused by the said act or
commission;
(3) direct causal relation between the
damage and the act or commission; and
(4) no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties
In the case of Elcano vs. Hill, 16 this Court held that:

". . . the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e),

Section 3, Rule III, refers exclusively to civil liability
founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,
whereas the civil liability for the same act considered
as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case
that the criminal act charged has not happened or
has not been committed by the accused.”

The petitioners' cause of action being based on a

quasi-delict, the acquittal of the driver, private
respondent Romeo Villa, of the crime charged in
Criminal Case is not a bar to the prosecution of Civil
Case.
THE END.