M. H. Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf And Pacific Company, G.R. No. 11!, "anua#y $%, 1!

&
'ACT() Rakes was a black man working as a laborer for Atlantic Gulf in the early 1900s. One day, they were
working in the companys yard and they were transporting hea!y rails using two cars "karitons#$% each car
carrying the opposite ends of the rails. &he cars were pulled by rope from the front and other workers are
pushing the cars from behind. &here were no side guards installed on the sides of the cars but the rails were
secured by ropes. &he track where the cars mo!e were also weakened by a pre!ious typhoon. 't was alleged
that Atlantics foreman was notified of said damage in the tracks but the same were left unrepaired. (hile the
cars were being mo!ed and when it reached the depressed portion of the track, and while Rakes was beside
one of the cars, the ropes ga!e in and the rails slipped thereby crushing his leg and causing it to be amputated.
Rakes sued Atlantic Gulf and he won% he was awarded ),000 pesos for damages "*+,)00$.
Atlantic assailed the decision of the lower court alleging that they specifically ordered their workers to be walking
only before or after the cars and not on the side of the cars because the cars ha!e no side guards to protect
them in case the rails would slip. Atlantic also alleged that Rakes should be suing the foreman as it was him who
neglected to ha!e the tracks repaired% that Rakes himself was negligent for ha!ing known of the depression on
the track yet he continued to work.
*((+,) (hether or not Atlantic is ci!illy liable.
H,-.) ,es. Rakes as per the e!idence could not ha!e known of the damage in the track as it was another
employee who swore he notified the foreman about said damage. -urther, his lack of caution in continuing to
work is not of a gross nature as to constitute negligence on his part. On the other hand though, Rakes
contributory negligence can be inferred from the fact that he was on the side of the cars when in fact there were
orders from the company barring workers from standing near the side of the cars. .is disobedient to this order
does not bar his reco!ery of damages though% the /upreme 0ourt instead reduced the award of damages from
),000 pesos to +,)00 pesos.
'n this case, the /0 also elucidated the two kinds of culpa which are1
1. 0ulpa as substanti!e and independent, which on account of its origin arises in an obligation between two
persons not formerly bound by any other obligation% may be also considered as a real source of an
independent obligation "e2tra3contractual or culpa a4uiliana$.
+. 0ulpa as an incident in the performance of an obligation which cannot be presumed to e2ist without the
other, and which increases the liability arising from the already e2isting obligation "contractual or culpa
contractual$.
5O&61 &oday the three kinds of negligence are "deri!ed from Roman 7aw$1
1. 0ulpa 0riminal
+. 0ulpa 0ontractual
8. 0ulpa A4uiliana
-rom1 http199www.uberdigests.info9+01190:9rakes3!s3atlantic3gulf9