El Cano vs Hill

Facts:
Defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the
occurrence,
killed
Agapito.
He
w a s apprehended and charged
appropriately before CFI. He acquitted on the ground that his act was
notcriminal, because of lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake.Thereupon, the
parents of Agapito, filed a complaint for recovery of damages against the defendant
andhis father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he was living and getting
subsistence, for the killing byReginald of the son of the plaintiffs.Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on the grounds that: first, the civil action is barred by the acquittal
of Reginald, and; second, the father cannot be held liable for the act of his son because
the latter is alreadymarried at the time of the commission, thus, is already emancipated.
Issues:
Whether or not quasi-delict is restricted to negligence and cannot apply to
voluntary acts or omissionsproducing injury ( or felony)?Whether or not a father may
be held liable for the act of his emancipated child constituting quasi-delict?
Held:
No. To repeat the Barredo case, under Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of
criminal negligence,whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a
subsequent civil action, not for civil liabilityarising from criminal negligence,
but for damages due to a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana although it mentions
the word negligence but according to Justice Bocobo it must be construed according
to thespirit that giveth lift- rather than that which is literal that killeth the
intent of the lawmaker should beobserved in applying the same. Criminal
prosecution and civil action are two different things.On the second issue (obsolete),
Yes, the father may be held liable. While it is true that marriage of a childemancipates
him from the parental authority of his parents, what matters really is whether
or not suchminor is completely emancipated as defined by law. In the case at bar, his
emancipation is only partial for as provided by law he can sue and be sued in court with
the assistance of his parents, he cannot managehis own properties without the approval
of his parents, and third as in the facts, he relies for subsistencefrom his parents.
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad (GR 12191, 14 October 1918)
Facts:
Petitioner Cangco is employed by defendant Manila Railroad Co. in
M a n i l a , a n d b y v i r t u e o f h i s employment, he is entitled free ride from his house in
San Mateo to Manila and vice-versa. On a fatefulnight around 8:00 PM at the station of
San Mateo where it was dimly lighted , petitioner while alighting thetrain (though it was
still moving very slowly to the point of stop), not knowing that there are sacks of
melonpiled at the edge of the platform stepped on the objects, causing him to
slip off balance. Plaintiff wasdrawn under the car in an unconscious condition
and as a result seriously injured him. His arm was amputated and he was
prevented from working. He spent approx P800 pesos for his medical
expenses.Thereupon, he sued Manila Railroad to recover damages on the ground of
negligence of the servantsand employees of the defendant. The CFI ruled that although
there is an apparent negligence on the partof the defendant through its employees

but nevertheless, the plaintiff cannot recover because he hadfailed to use due
caution in alighting from the coach. Hence this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not Manila Railroad Company is liable to the plaintiff for the negligent acts of
its employees,notwithstanding that plaintiff was also negligent?
Held:
Yes! While the plaintiff may have been negligent, the defendant is also negligent. The
case falls under thecategory that of (1) culpa contractual, that is, contract of carriage by
providing the passengers safe travelbeginning from the time heIt is important to note
that the foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage,and
that the obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered
arises, if at all, from thebreach of that contract by reason of the failure of defendant
to exercise due care in its performance. Thatis to say, its liability is direct and
immediate, differing essentially, in legal viewpoint from that presumptiveresponsibility
for the negligence of its servants, imposed by article 1903 of the Civil Code, which can
berebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their selection and supervision. Article
1903 of the CivilCode is not applicable to obligations arising ex contractu, but only to
extra-contractual obligations or tou s e t h e t e c h n i c a l f o r m o f e x p r e s s i o n ,
that
article
relates
only
to
culpa
aquiliana
and
not
to
c u l p a contractual.respondeat superior - One who places a powerful automobile in the
hands of a servant whom he knows tobe ignorant of the method of managing such
a vehicle, is himself guilty of an act of negligence which makes him liable for all
the consequences of his imprudence.Culpa Aquiliana or extra-contractual culpaThe
liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a voluntary act or
omission which,without willful intent, but by mere negligence or inattention, has
caused damage to another. From thisarticle two things are apparent: (1) That
when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there
instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the
master or employer either in selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over
him after the selection,or both; and (2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris
et de jure, and consequently, may berebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer
shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selectionand supervision he has exercised
the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption isovercome and he
is relieved from liability.Distinction between non-contractual and contractual
ObligationThe fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those
which arise from contract,rests upon the fact that in cases of non -contractual
obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the
vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum juris exists
independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the
p a r t i e s w h e n e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e contractual relation.The mere fact that a person is
bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractualliability to such
person.Comparative negligence - if the accident was caused by plaintiffs own
negligence, no liability is imposedupon defendants negligence and plaintiffs
negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages should be apportioned.
It is, therefore, important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of negligence.Test on
Contributory negligence.Was there anything in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff

at the time he alighted from the trainwhich would have admonished a person of average
prudence that to get off the train under the conditionsthen existing was dangerous