DE GUIA v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO.

FACTS:
1. De Guia, a physician, boarded a car at the end of the line with intention of coming to the city.
2. At about 30m from the starting point the car entered a switch [a set of points on a railway track], the plaintiff
remaining on the back platform holding the handle of the right hand door.
3. Upon coming out of the switch, the small wheels of the rear truck left the track and struck a concrete post at
the left of the track.
4. The post was shattered; and as the car stopped the plaintiff was thrown against the door receiving bruises
and possible certain internal injuries.
5. Trial court found the motorman of the derailed car negligent because of maintaining a rapid speed. Manila
Electric’s defense was that it was a fortuitous event because a small stone was lodged between the rails
unknown to the motorman. However, the Court did not believe such assertion and said that an experienced
and attentive motorman would’ve discovered that something was wrong and would’ve stopped.
6. It results that the company (MERALCO) is liable for the damage resulting to the plaintiff as a consequence of
that negligence, constitution a breach of contract.
7. The Trial Court held that since MERALCO observed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants,
he is considered a debtor in good faith, and hence liable to such damages that are reasonable foreseen or
foreseeable and those that are a probable and necessary consequence of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff
(Article 1107). Trial Court awarded the following as damages:
1. 900 Php as damages for Loss of Earnings
2. 3,900 Php as losses due to his inability to accept the position as District Health Officer of Negros
Occidental

ISSUE: What amount of actual damages is De Guia entitled to?

DECISION: It results from the foregoing that the judgment appealed from must be modified by reducing the amount of
the recovery to eleven hundred pesos (1,100), with legal interest from November 8, 1916. As thus modified the
judgment is affirmed, without any special pronouncement as to costs of this instance. So ordered.

HELD:
Loss of professional earnings
1. The trial judge found that Dr. De Guia was unable to properly attend to his professional labors for 3 months
and suspended his practice for that period. Since his customary income as a physician, was about P300 per
month, the trial judge accordingly allowed P900 (P300 x 3 months) as damages for loss of professional
earnings.

Loss due to inability to accept a position as health officer in Neg. Occ.

1. The contention was that the representative from Neg. Occ. had asked Dr. Montinola, who had authority to
make the appointment, to nominate De Guia to such position. The job was supposed to be good for 2 yrs with
a salary of P1,600 per annum, and possibility fo outside practice worth P350.
2. Damage of this character could not, at the time of the accident, have been foreseen by the delinquent part as
a probable consequence of the injury inflicted. Since it’s too speculative it must be eliminated.

Medical treatment and incapacitation for future professional practice

1. De Guia claims P40,000. P10,000 represents the cost of medical treatment and P30,000 represents the
damage resulting from the character of his injuries, which are supposedly such as to incapacitate him for the
exercise of the medical profession in the future. De Guia introduced as evidence the testimonies of numerous
medical experts.
2. However, experts introduced by MERALCO tend to show that De Guia’s injuries were trivial and that the
attendant nervous derangement, with its complicated train of ailments, was merely simulated.
3. Damages may not be awarded to De Guia in this regard since the evidence he presented only pertains
to his injuries and is intended to restore him to his usual condition of health. Furthermore
compensation for the physical or mental pain which he may have endured may not be awarded in this
jurisdiction.
4. Evidence showed that de Guia wanted to profit from the litigation with the aid of his knowledge and
professional friends and associates. Trial court was correct in rejecting the exaggerated estimate of damages.

Expenses incurred for medical service

1. P200 or the amount actually paid by De Guia for Dr. Montes’ services, represents the extent of De Guia’s
obligation with respect to treatment for said injuries.
 2. With regard to the obligation supposedly incurred by De Guia to 3 other physicians, the Court opined that they
were not proper subjects of recovery. The services were gratuitously rendered, and De Guia seemed them
out to get a good case for his lawsuit, and not for a bona fide purpose of effecting the cure of his injuries.
3. In order to constitute a proper element of recovery in an action of this character, the medical service for which
reimbursement is claimed should not only be such as to have created a legal obligation upon the plaintiff but
such as was reasonably necessary in view of his actual condition.
a. His claim of damages must be limited to such expenditures as were reasonably suited to the case.