ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10663   March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY<br /><br />034 Phil 389

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10663. March 24, 1916. ]

    JOSEPH E. FOX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

    Lawrence, Ross & Block and Ricardo Paras for Appellant.

    No appearance for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    APPEALS; FINDING OF FACT; REVERSAL. — The finding that the collision was due to fast driving on the part of the motorman being contrary to the testimony of every witness and being supported by no evidence at all, except the incredible statement that the automobile was knocked forty feet, is reversed as manifestly against the weight of the evidence.


    D E C I S I O N


    TRENT, J. :


    This appeal brings up for review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P670, with interest and costs, being the amount of damages found to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of a collision between his automobile and one of the defendant’s street cars.

    Calle Palacio, in the Walled City of Manila, runs approximately north and south and is crossed at right angles by Calle Victoria. On Calle Palacio is a single track of the defendant company, near the west side, on which the cars run toward the north. On the southeast corner, at the intersection of Palacio and Victoria, is a solid building, the Delmonico Hotel, extending to the street line and so obstructing the view that the motorman of a car going north on Calle Palacio cannot see a vehicle approaching from the east on Calle Victoria until the arrival of one or the other at the corner, while the driver of the vehicle is similarly handicapped. On January 25, 1914, the plaintiff drove his automobile along Calle Victoria toward the west and stopped on the defendant’s street-car track on Calle Palacio, where it was struck by one of the northbound cars, and was damaged. The theories of the parties as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision are diametrically opposed to each other and are set forth in the testimony of the plaintiff and Emilio Pacheco, one of the witnesses for the defendant, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "PLAINTIFF. When I turned the corner of Calles Victoria and Palacio, I saw a street car was approaching, . . . and, as there were many victorias and calesas on both sides of the street, it was impossible for either the automobile or the street, it was impossible for either the automobile or the street car to pass. I then stopped my automobile, and I thought that the street car was also going to stop. The street car was going very slowly and I stopped, because I did not want it to run into me; so I wanted to back up, but the street car, instead of stopping, collided with my automobile, not exactly at a right angle, but obliquely, at an angle of about 45 degrees.

    "Q. Did this motorman see you before this collision with your automobile? — A. Yes, sir; because I raised up my right hand as a signal for him to stop.

    "Q. At what distance was he then? — A. He was at least 50 feet away.

    "EMILIO PACHECO. The street car was coming from Bagumbayan toward the Walled City. On arriving almost in front of the Delmonico Hotel — that is, near the intersection of Calles Victoria and Palacio — I saw an automobile which was coming from Calle Victoria at the same moment the street car was approaching; the automobile apparently was coming at great speed, because it came out of the street in this way and stopped in the middle of the track at the moment the street car arrived. The motorman then made efforts to stop the street car, in these efforts the street car, after the collision, went backwards.

    "Q. How far did the street car push the automobile? — A. About half a meter or a vara, I should say. Something like that.

    "Q. At what distance was the street car from the automobile at the very moment the automobile reached the center of the track? — A. About a braza, more or less; a little more than a braza.

    "Q. What time elapsed from the moment the automobile appeared on the track until the collision? — A. Oh! It happened instantly, because I saw the automobile come out this way and afterwards collide with it."cralaw virtua1aw library

    From the above-quoted testimony it will be seen that the plaintiff himself admitted that the defendant’s car was being run very slowly. The plaintiff does not claim that the motorman failed to give the signal of the approach of the car to the street crossing. Therefore, the only question of fact presented is whether, as claimed by plaintiff, the street car was at least 50 feet away from the automobile when the latter reached the track and the motorman had due notice of its presence and ample time to stop the car before the collision, or, as affirmed by the defense, the street car was then so near the crossing that it became utterly impossible to prevent the collision with the automobile.

    We will now proceed to examine the remainder of the testimony. The plaintiff further testified that the collision pushed or knocked (empujo) his automobile "at least about 40 feet" and smashed (rompiendo) the four tires. As to the first, the plaintiff is corroborated by Miss Holstein, who was a passenger in the automobile at the time and who stated that the automobile was knocked some 12 steps. But this witness said nothing regarding the distance between the car and the automobile at the time the latter reached the track and the plaintiff gave the signal to stop, but she did state that she did not know whether the motorman saw the automobile or not. The plaintiff presented one other witness, Clemente Manguera, who claimed to have seen the collision. This witness testified that the motorman saw the automobile before the collision, because, from a distance of 20 feet the automobile passenger, Miss Holstein, made a sign to the motorman to stop and said; "Espera, boy." This part of Manguera’s testimony is flatly denied by Miss Holstein in her testimony, wherein she stated that she did not say a single word to the motorman. Manguera further testified that the street car was running slowly because it had just started from a dead stop. He was then asked how far it was from the place where the street car had stopped to the place of the collision. He answered: "I understand that the street car had gone about 1 vara when the automobile arrived."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After the accident the automobile was taken to the plaintiff’s garage, which was nearby. On the defendant’s receiving notice of the collision, Mr. Van Hoven, an employee of the company, went to the garage and examined the machine. The plaintiff attempted to show, over the objection of the defendant, that Van Hoven offered to settle the matter for P200, and the plaintiff testified that Van Hoven then said that the motorman was guilty or negligence. Van Hoven testified that after the plaintiff told him how the accident occurred, he replied that if the plaintiff’s story were true, the motorman was guilty and that he informed the plaintiff that he would investigate the cause of the collision and if the motorman was the guilty party, he, the plaintiff, would be paid without delay. Photographs were taken of the automobile before anything had been done to it and these show that at least three of the tires, the only ones visible in the photographs, were in good condition.

    The court, in speaking of the acts of the motorman, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If he had reasonably and prudently driven his car with less speed, as he ought to do when he has to cross streets intersecting the track, he could quite surely have avoided the collision with an automobile that was standing in the middle of the street when the accident occurred."cralaw virtua1aw library

    According to the foregoing conclusions of the trial court, the accident could have been avoided if the motorman had driven his car with less speed, or, in other words, negligence is attributable to the motorman principally on account of fast driving; but all the witnesses, including the plaintiff, testified that the street car was running slowly — very slowly. No one states that the motorman was running fast. The only indication of fast running is the statement of the plaintiff that his automobile was knocked "at least about 40 feet" and that the four tires were smashed, and also that of Miss Holstein to the effect that the automobile was knocked some 12 steps. The plaintiff’s testimony is irreconcilable and inconsistent. If the street car were running very slowly, it certainly would not have knocked the automobile 40 feet, nor, as stated by Miss Holstein, 12 steps. The finding that the collision was due to fast driving on the part of the motorman being contrary to the testimony of every witness and being supported by no evidence at all, except the incredible statement that the automobile was knocked 40 feet, must be reversed because it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of the defense to the effect that the collision was due solely to the carelessness of the plaintiff, who recklessly drove his automobile at a high speed upon the defendant’s street car track just in front of a moving car, making it impossible for the motorman to stop the car in time to prevent the accident.

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed and judgment will be entered dismissing the complaint, without costs in this instance. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10663   March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY<br /><br />034 Phil 389




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED