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. 10838   March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY<br /><br />034 Phil 55

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10838. March 1, 1916. ]

    ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

    Ramon Salinas for Appellants.

    Lawrence, Ross & Block for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTRIC COMPANY; DEGREE OF CARE EXACTED OF. — While it is true that the care and caution required of electric companies is not simply the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent man, but the highest degree practicable to avoid injury to everyone who may be in proximity to their wires and likely to come, accidentally or otherwise, in contact with them, yet such companies, in erecting and maintaining their wires, and bound only to anticipate such combinations of circumstances and accidents and injuries therefrom, as they may reasonably forecast as likely to happen, taking into account their own experience and the practice of other in similar conditions, together with what is inherently probable in the condition of the wires as they relate to the conduct of its business.

    2. ID.; ID.; GUARD WIRES OVER TROLLEY WIRES; FALLEN TELEPHONE WIRES. — It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that it is the duty of an electric company to string guard wires over and parallel with its trolley wires in such a way as to prevent telephone wires, in the event of their falling, form coming in contact with the trolley wires.

    3. ID.; NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT OFF CURRENT. — An electric company is not, as a rule, negligent in failing to shut off its current upon its own initiative during a storm where it is shown that the municipal authorities have general supervision and, in some particulars, a real control over such a company and has designated one of its public officials to act in such matters, and where such official has ordered the current to be shut off and the company complied with the order immediately upon receipt of the same.


    D E C I S I O N


    TRENT, J. :


    This is an action for damages by Alfonsa Carlos and her daughter, Barbara, against the defendant for negligently causing the death of Alfonso Sobrevilla. From a judgment dismissing the action after trial upon the merits, the plaintiffs have appealed, and the case was submitted to us for consideration on August 3, 1915.

    The facts are these: The defendant’s street railway track on Calle Gagalañgin, in 1905, was on the east side of that street and its trolley wire over the track was consequently between the eastern curb and the center line of the street. This trolley wire was uncovered and carried a current of high voltage. At the side of the street, carried on posts, were the feed wires and other wires of the defendant, all of which were insulated. Above these wires on another set of posts were the insulated galvanized-iron wires of the telephone company. There were trees at the side of the street on private land which towered above the wires. On September 26, 1905, Manila was visited by a typhoon of extraordinary violence. Early in the afternoon and when the storm had reached great intensity, and its fall broke one of the telephone company’s wires. The free end of this wire, falling to the street, was carried by the wind across the trolley wire of the defendant and, striking the wet ground, established a circuit and became charged with the dangerous current of the trolley wire. Neither the trolley wire nor any other wire of the defendant was broken. A child, passing along the street, struck the live telephone wire and was killed by the electrical discharge. Alfonso Sobrevilla, a policeman on duty in the street, went to the assistance of the unfortunate child and, coming in contact with the same wire, was himself killed by the current. The defendant had no control over the poles and wires of the telephone company; neither did the defendant have any knowledge of the defect in the telephone wires or that the storm had broken such wires before Sobrevilla was killed. The record fails to disclose whether the telephone line was constructed before or after that of the trolley system. The defendant shut off the electrical current immediately upon receipt of an order from the city electrician. This order was not given, however, until after the accidental had taken place.

    The defendant company was authorized to lay its track and put its trolley wire at the place of the accident. The trolley wire was uncovered and carried a high voltage. This was necessary in order for the wire to serve its purpose. The trolley wire and other wires of the company were strung in accordance with the municipal ordinances. In fact, there is no contention that all the requirements of the city authorities as to the location of the defendant’s tracks, poles, and wires in Calle Gagalangin were not complied with. So the whole case resolves itself into the question whether or not the defendant was negligent (a) in failing to guard its wires so that a falling telephone wire would not come in contact with them, and (b) in not cutting off its current upon its own initiative on account of the danger arising from the unusual severity of the storm which had been raging for some time prior to the receipt of the order of the city electrician.

    Article 1105 of the Civil Code provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "No person shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The case at bars does not fall within the exceptions mentioned in this article. (Manresa, vol. 8, p. 91.) Article 1902 of the Civil Code provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We have, then, on the one hand, nonliability of the company for events which could not be foreseen and, on the other hand, its liability where fault or negligence may be attributed to it. It was not only the defendant’s privilege, but its duty under its franchise, to supply electric current to the city and to keep its cars running as long as possible. The people depend upon this service and would have just grounds for complaint if the defendant were discontinue its current without just cause. While it is true that when an electric railway company is given authority to use the public streets for its lines, the law implies a duty of using a very high degree of care in the construction, operation, and maintenance of its appliances, requiring it to employ every reasonable precaution known to those possessed of the skill and knowledge requisite to the safe conduct and control of such a dangerous agency for providing against such dangers incident to its use, and holds it accountable for the injury of any person due to the neglect of that duty (see cases cited in monographic note to the case of Herbert v. Lake Charles Ice, etc., Co. 100 Am. St. Rep., 505); that in the control and management of a dangerous agency such as electricity, the law exacts a degree of skill and diligence commensurate with the danger involved (U. S. v. Juanillo, 23 Phil. Rep. 212); that a corporation, in stringing wires of a dangerous voltage, must be regardful of the presence of other wires and of the possibility of its own wires charging or coming in contact with them; that the ownership of caused by coming in contact with it; that an electric railway company or an electric light company is responsible for an injury where it negligently permits its wires to come in contact with another company’s telephone or telegraph wires, which transmits the current and thereby cause an accident (Daltry v. Media Elec., etc., Co., 208 Pa. St., 403, and cases cited); that the duty and liability of electric companies is not limited to keeping their own wires out of the streets, but extends to the prevention of the escape of the dangerous force in their service through any wires brought in contact with their own and of its transmission thereby to anyone using the streets. Yet such companies, in erecting and maintaining their wires, are bound only to anticipate such combinations of circumstances and accidents and injuries therefrom, as they may reasonably forecast as likely to happen, taking into account their own experience and the practice of others in similar conditions, together with what is inherently probable in the condition of the wires as they relate to the conduct of their business. (Synder v. Wheeling Elec. Co., 43 W. Va., 661 Am. St. Rep., 922.)

    In the United States it has been held that if an electric corporation places wires, designed to carry powerful currents of electricity, in the streets where there are telephone wires above, thus making the telephone wires, which before were harmless, dangerous, it is the duty of the electric company to guard its wires so that a falling telephone wire will not come in contact with them. (Rowe v. New York etc., Tel. Co., 66 N. J. L., 19; Electric Ry. Co. v. Shelton, 89 Tenn., 423; 24 Am. St. Rep., 614; Richmond etc. Ry. Co. v. Rubin (Va.) , 47 S. E., 834.) There re other cases in that country holding that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that it is the duty of an electric company to place guards over its trolley wires in such a way as to prevent telephone wires, in the event of their falling, from coming in contact with the trolley wires. (City of Albany v. Watervliet Turnpike & R. Co., 27 N. Y. Supp., 848; Block v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co., 89 Wis., 371; 46 Am. St. Rep., 849.)

    In the case at bar the accident did not occur at a place where the telephone wire crossed the trolley wire, but at a place where the former was running above the latter and parallel with it. The defendant’s trolley wires withstood the severity of the storm and they, of themselves, were rendered in no way dangerous. They were in their proper functions in the propulsion of the cars. The only precautionary measure which the defendant could have taken was the stringing of guard wires over the trolley wires so as to prevent the telephone wires, suspended above, from falling on those uninsulated and highly charged wires. But the record fails to show whether such means of protection would lessen the danger of contact or not. No testimony was offered on this point. Neither are we informed whether guard wires are actually employed in electrical construction under similar circumstances to that question. It may be that practical experience has proved that guard wires are not effective, because, themselves liable to be blown down or disarranged by storms and there by coming in contact with the heavily charged wires, aggravating, rather than lessening, the menace to persons passing along the streets. We must therefore conclude that the record before us does not justify a holding that the defendant was negligent in failing to place or string guard wires between its trolley wires and the wires of the telephone company.

    The city electrician, whose peculiar duty it was to act is such matters, did not think it was necessary to order the defendant to shut off its current until he actually acted, and if he saw no sufficient reason for shutting off the current earlier, should the defendant be expected to have acted differently? This is the question involved in the second proposition.

    The defendant is bound by its franchise to furnish at all times cars sufficient to satisfy the public demand and to carry comfortably all the members of the public desiring to ride thereon. During such a typhoon as the one referred to above, there is special need for street cars to get the people to their homes in order that they may be able to care for their families and property. No other adequate means of transportation are available to the general public during such a crisis.

    Again, under section 17 (ii) of the Manila Charter, the municipal board has provided that the city electrician is authorized, empowered, and directed to have general supervision over the placing, stringing, attaching, and construction of electric railway wires, poles, and other apparatus, and the inspection of the same. (Sec. 315, Malcolm’s Revised Ordinances.) The city electrician shall as frequently as possible inspect all wires, poles, and other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, or measuring electricity; and shall condemn all such wires, poles or other apparatus as are dangerous or defective, and so notify the owner thereof (Id., 316). The city electrician and his subordinates have a right to enter upon any premises for the purpose of making such inspection (Id., 320) and to charge therefor. (Id., 324.)

    It will thus be seen that the city authorities have a real supervision, and in some particulars a real control, over the defendant’s electric railway and light system. The city has designated one of its officials who has technical knowledge of electricity, to act in these matters. This official did, as we have said, act by directing the defendant to cut off its current just as soon as he thought it was necessary. Under all the facts and circumstances above set forth, we think it would be going too far to hold that the defendant was negligent in failing to cut off its current before the receipt of the city electrician’s order. Cases may arise in which it would be the duty of the defendant to act upon its own initiative, but the case under consideration is not one of that character.

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs in this instance. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.

    Moreland, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 10838   March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY<br /><br />034 Phil 55




    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