Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4290 July 21, 1909 - ROBERT V. DELL v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

013 Phil 585:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4290. July 21, 1909. ]

ROBERT V. DELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGFHT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Kinney, Odlin & Lawrence, for Appellant.

Hixson & Jones, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. USE OF STREETS; STREET RAILWAY COMPANIES, AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. — The fact that a city has given to a corporation the right to operate street cars upon the streets in no way lessens the right which the people had in the use of such streets. The use of the street by such corporation is an additional burden upon the street but not an additional right. Such corporation in using the streets must observe the same care which all other users of the streets must observe. The corporation in running its cars over the streets must observe the same care with reference to other users of the streets which is exercised by it in the management of one car with reference to another in passing and repassing in the street as well as where one of its lines crosses another, except that the laws of the road do not apply to it.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 1st day of April, 1907, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover the sum of P500 as damages for injuries done by the defendant to a hearse belonging to the plaintiff, which damages, it was alleged, were caused through the neglect of the employees of the defendant in operating a car upon the street railway owned by the defendant. The defendant filed a general denial.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court who saw and heard the witnesses made the following findings of fact:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the evidence presented at the trial it appears that a car, belonging to the defendant and operated by employees of the defendant, running along Calle Cabildo, and reaching a street running at right angles to it, Calle Victoria, there ran into a hearse belonging to the plaintiff which was being hauled by one horse."cralaw virtua1aw library

"The driver of the hearse was thrown to the ground and injured, and could only testify as to the fact of being injured, and could not give any more information for the reason that he became unconscious on being thrown from the hearse which he was driving.

"A witness, who was not present in court, but whose declaration was received as though made in court, testified that the car was running at great speed, and that it was not giving any notice by ringing of the bell of its coming. It appears that the defendant’s car struck the hearse in the rear part of it and shoved it along so that finally the wheels were smashed and the hearse was overturned at the corner of the street further on from where the collision took place, and the car went clear across Calle Victoria and before it was stopped it was practically its full length beyond.

"There was evidence on the part of the defendant that the car was running at the usual speed, and that the gong on the car was repeatedly sounded; and one witness testified that the car was only going as fast as one would walk.

"I am of the opinion that if the car had only been going as fast as one would walk, it could have been stopped without collision with the hearse, and failure to do so constituted a negligent act on the part of the defendant. The fact that the car went, after the collision took place, across the street and ran nearly the length beyond the street, would indicate that it must have been going at a greater rate of speed and probably a higher rate of speed that would be justified at such places as that where the accident occurred, and that the running at such a rate would constitute negligence on the part of the defendant.

"The fact that the hearse had nearly crossed the track, so that the car only came in collision with the hind part of it, would indicate that plaintiff’s driver had not heard the striking of the gong, and that he had the right of way.

"The evidence in relation to the value of the injury to the hearse was very poor. The plaintiff testified that the hearse was completely destroyed, so that it would be as expensive to repair it as it would to make a new one, and that it was worth probably the sum of P500.

"In the light of the circumstances which appeared in the case, that the hearse was driven along by the car, the wheels smashed and then the hearse overturned, must indicate that the hearse as not wholly destroyed, or that if it was so destroyed as to render it entirely worthless that it was of small value in the first place, and I find from a fair deduction, from the evidence as presented, that the value of the damage to the hearse was the sum of P300.

"The conclusions are, that the defendant, having operated its car upon the street in a negligent manner, so that the plaintiff’s hearse was collided with the partially destroyed, is liable for the damages arising therefrom."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon these facts the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P300 and the costs of the action. From this decision of the lower court the defendant appealed, and made the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The court erred in finding that the damage to plaintiff’s property was caused by defendant’s negligence.

"II. The court erred in failing to find that the negligence of plaintiff’s employee caused, or contributed, to the damage.

"III. The court erred in rendering judgment for plaintiff.

"IV. The court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reference to the first above-noted assignment of error the lower court found that the defendant was guilty of negligence. Upon this question the lower court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I am of the opinion that if the car had only been going as fast as one would walk, it could have been stopped without collision with the hearse, and failure to do so constituted a negligent act on the part of the defendant. The fact that the car went, after the collision took place, across the street and ran nearly the length beyond the street, would indicate that it must have been going at a greater rate of speed and probably a higher rate of speed than would be justified at such places as that where the accident occurred, and that the running at such a rate would constitute negligence on the part of the defendant.

"The fact that the hearse had nearly crossed the track, so that the car only came in collision with the hind part of it, would indicate that plaintiff’s driver had not heard the striking of the gong, and that he had the right of way."cralaw virtua1aw library

Was this finding of fact in accordance with the preponderance of evidence adduced during the trial of said cause? If it is, then the finding of fact by the lower court must be sustained. (Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 7 Phil. Rep., 359; sec. 1, Act No. 1596.)

The proof relating to the negligence of the parties is as follows: Alfred B. Jores testified —

"That on the 2d day of March, 1907, the said witness was accompanying a hearse owned by Mr. R. V. Dell, and was going along Calle Victoria toward Calle Cabildo, in the city of Manila; that as the said hearse reached the corner of Calles Victoria and Cabildo, a car owned by the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company was going through said Calle Cabildo at a high rate of speed in the direction of the Luneta; that as the car was nearing the said corner no signal was given nor was the gong sounded to warn the public; that on the said date and under the said circumstances the car above referred to collided with the said hearse owned by R. V. Dell, breaking and destroying the same through no carelessness on the part of the persons in charge thereof, and that the said collision and damage were caused solely through the negligence of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company and its agents who conducted the said car on the aforesaid occasion."cralaw virtua1aw library

Lorenzo Hieronimo, a witness of the plaintiff, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. On or about the 2d day of March of this year what work were you engaged in for Mr. Dell?

"A. I was employed by him as a cochero.

"Q. Were you driving a carriage of his on that day?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What happened to that carriage on that day?

"A. We were coming from Bagumbayan in the direction of the Bureau of Health to obtain a license, and we were approaching Calle Cabildo; we did not hear anything to show that a street car was coming, and so I did not slacken the speed of my horse, and when I was crossing the track at Calle Cabildo coming along Calle Victoria the carriage was struck by a street car.

"Q. How far were you on the track when you noticed the car coming?

"A. The horse was already on the track where the street cars pass by.

"Q. Did you hold up the horse or try to go ahead?

"A. I continued driving ahead, so that the street car would not catch us.

"Q. At what speed were you going?

"A. Not very fast, and not very slow, the horse was on a trot.

"Q. Is this a very fast horse?

"A. No, sir; not very fast.

"Q. Did you have him under control at that time?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Did this man here [indicating Van Hoven] come to the hospital to talk with you?

"A. I believe so, I believe he spoke to me at the hospital.

"Q. Did you tell Mr. Van Hoven at the hospital that you tried to stop the horse before you collided with the street car, but that you could not because he was hard bitted?

"A. I did not say such a thing.

"Q. Did you say that to anybody at the hospital?

"A. No, sir; to nobody."cralaw virtua1aw library

Antonio Legarda, a witness for the defense, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Where you a passenger on the street car last March when it struck an undertaker’s wagon?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Where did the accident happen on Calle Cabildo?

"A. At the crossing of Calle Victoria with Calle Cabildo, in front of the Young Men’s Christian Association building.

"Q. Will you please state to the court what you saw in regard to the accident?

"A. When the car came near to Calle Victoria I observed that the motorman rang the bell rapidly. Then I put my head out of the window on the right-hand side of the car as going on, and I saw a horse pulling a wagon, and observed that the driver held the reins very tight, then I withdrew my head from the window and saw the wagon just in front of the street car at approximately the distance of one meter or a meter and half from the driver of the wagon to the street car. Then I said to myself that a collision will be inevitable. At the time the motorman was ringing the bell continually, and he put on the brakes, and when the street car struck the wagon one of those who were sitting on the box of the wagon jumped on the sidewalk and the cochero was dragged by the horses because he did not let go of the reins, but was holding on to them tightly, and a few seconds afterwards I saw that his head was bleeding.

"Q. Where did the street car stop?

"A. Two or three meters beyond Calle Victoria.

"Q. In front of the Young Men’s Christian Association building?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Was the car clear of Calle Victoria when it came to a stop?

"A. I believe so, but I am not sure.

"Q. And the first thing you saw when you looked out of the window was the cochero?

"A. No, sir; I saw about two-thirds of the horses.

"Q. How many horses were there?

"A. Either one or two, I do not remember.

"Q. When the street car struck the wagon what happened to the wagon?

"A. It was dragged along, and the two wheels were torn off.

"Q. What happened to the carriage after that, was it tipped over, or did it stand up?

"A. It was thrown on the side.

"Q. And when the wagon tipped on its side what part of the street was it on?

"A. As we were going, on the righthand side of the street.

"Q. Tell the court if you can just where the car stopped.

"A. Just about the first window of the Young Men’s Christian Association building.

"Q. The front end of the rear end?

"A. If remember it was the middle.

"Q. Then the car was just about clear of the corner of the Young Men’s Christian Association building?

"A. About that.

"Q. And what became of the driver?

"A. He was dragged along by his horse; he did not let go of the reins.

"Q. Did the horse run away?

"A. I think it was stopped at last by some people there.

"Q. Were the ruins of the carriage after the accident clear of Calle Victoria?

"A. It was on Calle Cabildo."cralaw virtua1aw library

Matias Enriquez, a witness for the defense, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Did you see the undertaker’s wagon before the car struck it?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. From which direction was the wagon coming?

"A. From the left-hand side, going in the direction of Calle Palacio.

"Q. At what speed was the wagon going before it was struck?

"A. It was a big horse, and it was going quite fast.

"Q. How fast was the street car going?

"A. It was going very slow, because a woman passenger had just got off the car.

"Q. State whether or not the gong on the car was rung before coming to the corner?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Was the wagon pushed along by the street car?

"A. Yes, sir; and on account of the fastness of the horse the wagon tipped over, and the cochero fell at the door of the cafe of the Young Men’s Christian Association."cralaw virtua1aw library

Eulalio Atillo, a witness for the defense, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. What is your occupation?

"A. At the present time I have no job; I am working as a day laborer.

"Q. Were you formerly a motorman for the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Do you remember a collision between a Santa Ana car and an undertaker’s wagon last March?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What were you doing at the time?

"A. I was a motorman, No. 2028.

"Q. Were you in charge of the street car that struck the undertaker’s wagon?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. At what place did that accident occur?

"A. At the corner of Calle Victoria and Calle Cabildo.

"Q. At what speed was the car running before coming to the corner of Calle Victoria?

"A. There is a post to stop at the near the Army and Navy Club, and a woman passenger wanted to get off there, so I stopped the car between this post and the next one following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. How fast were you running at the time of the accident?

"A. I was just getting the current.

"Q. Was the gong ringing or not?

"A. When I started I rang the bell, and when near Calle Victoria I rang the bell again.

"Q. Where were you when you first saw this undertaker’s wagon?

"A. There was no time to see; I saw the wagon all of a sudden; I was just arriving at the corner of Calle Victoria and did not have time to stop, and as a matter of fact the street car struck the rear part of the wagon, and I could reach the wagon with my hand.

"Q. Where did your car come to a stop?

"A. Near the Young Men’s Christian Association building; the whole of the car had not passed Calle Victoria.

"Q. When you stopped the current, how near were you to Calle Victoria?

"A. As I have started there are two posts, one near the Army and Navy Club and one near Calle Victoria, and I topped the car between these two posts to let a woman passenger get off.

"Q. Do you know how far apart these posts are?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. How far apart are they?

"A. Something farther that from where I am sitting to that well yonder [indicating a distance of about 30 feet].

"Q. When you started your car after the woman got off between those two posts, did you turn on the full current?

"A. No, sir; as I was ahead of time I was going very slow. I only turned it on to the first mark.

"Q. How fast does the car go when you turn the crank to the first point, if you know?

"A. About as fast as a man could walk.

"Q. And did you increase the speed before coming to the corner?

"A. I did not.

"Q. Did you shut the power off any time after you commenced?

"A. I did on coming to cross the corner.

"Q. From the point where the woman got off, did you not shut off your current so that you could keep within your time?

"A. No, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

Celestino Chaves, a witness for the defense, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Were you a passenger on the street car last March, when it came in collision with the undertaker’s wagon?

"A. Yes, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Q. What part of the car were you seated in?

"A. Second class.

"Q. Where did the accident occur?

"A. Just at the corner of Calle Cabildo and Calle Victoria.

"Q. State what you saw of the accident.

"A. I was reading a newspaper, and when the collision took place I lifted up my head and saw that the undertaker’s wagon was tipped over on the right-hand side of the street car.

"Q. Did you not see the wagon before it was struck?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. At the time the car reached Calle Victoria at what speed was it running?

"A. It was going slowly.

"Q. State whether or not the gong was ringing.

"A. I did not pay any attention to that, as I was reading.

"Q. Did the motorman do anything to stop the car at Calle Victoria?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What did he do?

"A. He put on the brakes.

"Q. Where did the car come to a stop?

"A. Almost in front of the Young Men’s Christian and Association building.

"Q. Had the street car struck the wagon when you saw the motorman put on the brake?

"A. When I heard the striking of the street car with the wagon I lifted up my head, and saw the motorman putting on the brakes.

"Q. About where was the carriage lying?

"A. The carriage remained almost tipped over the sidewalk.

"Q. In front of any special building?

"A. In front of the Young Men’s Christian Association building."cralaw virtua1aw library

Juan Ignacio, a witness for the defense, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Where you on a street car last March when it struck an undertaker’s wagon?

"A. I was.

"Q. Where did this collision occur?

"A. At the corner of Calle Cabildo and Calle Victoria.

"Q. What did you see?

"A. I was in the street car, looking forward, and saw the motorman ringing the bell repeatedly, and when we were near Calle Victoria this wagon was passing by, and bear in mind the two corners at Cabildo and Victoria are very sharp, and the wagon coming up Calle Victoria tried to avoid the collision, and as a matter of fact the wagon was truck in the rear part, and the motorman was ringing the bell all the time.

"Q. What did the motorman do to avoid the collision, if anything?

"A. He put on the brakes, that it was i saw. We were going very slow, and that is the way the wagon was struck in the rear part, and it was pushed along. The cochero had hold of the reins very tight and as they did not break he was dragged along by the horse and fell down, and I believe his head struck on the sidewalk.

"Q. Where did the street car stop?

"A. Just on Calle Victoria, I believe the car had gone on 3 or 4 meters. The front of the street car was ahead of Calle Victoria.

"Q. Did you hear the bell ring before you came to Calle Victoria?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. How fast was the horse going just before it crossed the track?

"A. Slow, and then when the cochero saw the street car coming he tried to go fast, and as a matter of fact the rear part of his wagon was pushed onto the sidewalk.

"Q. How far away were you from the corner before you saw the horse on the track?

"A. I saw the wagon passing by, and when I paid attention was when the street car struck it.

"Q. You paid no attention to it when you first saw it?

"A. Yes, I saw the wagon coming from Calle Victoria, but I did not pay much attention until the car struck it.

"Q. Then before the accident happend you could not say — you do not know how near or far away you were from the horse and wagon?

"A. I could not tell you far; I saw wagon coming from Calle Victoria, and just as the car was passing by it struck the wagon.

"Q. Was the street car going very slow?

"A. Very slow."cralaw virtua1aw library

An examination of this proof shows some conflict with reference to some important facts. Some of the witnesses testified that the hearse driven by the plaintiff was going slowly at the time the accident occurred, while others testified that the hearse was going rapidly. Some of the witnesses testified that the motorman was sounding the gong all the time while the car was passing Cabildo Street. The motorman himself, however, who probably was giving more attention to that particular matter than the passengers or any of the other witnesses present, stated that he sounded the gong when he came near to Victoria Street and does not pretend that he was sounding the gong all the time. His testimony is open to the clear inference that he did not sound the gong until after he saw the hearse and horse in the street in front of him. All the witnesses agree that the hearse was crossing the street from left to right. Some of the witnesses (passengers on the car) testified that they looked out of the right-hand side of the car and saw the horse and a part of the hearse before the car came in contact with the hearse. Had the car been moving slowly, as contended by the defense, and had the motorman had the control of his car he should have had, he certainly might have stopped his car, without causing the injuries complained of. The lower court found that the fact that the car went across the street after the collision took place, and nearly the full length of the car beyond the street, indicated that the car was moving at a higher speed than could be justified at such places, and that moving at such a rate of speed constituted negligence on the part of the defendant.

The witness Chaves testified in effect that the motorman put on the brakes at the time the car struck the hearse. This fact is also corroborated by the motorman. He said, in answer to the question, "How fast were you running at the time of the accident?:" "I was just getting the current." "Getting the current" is a different effort from stopping the car. The motorman further said in answer to the question, "Did you shut off the power any time, etc.?" "I did on coming to cross the corner." We have then the proof that some of the passengers saw the horse and a part of the hearse out of the window on the right-hand side of the car before the collision took place; that the motorman put on his brake at the time of the collision, and also that at the time of the collision the motorman was just "getting his current."cralaw virtua1aw library

This all goes to show that the motorman had not taken the precautions necessary to avoid the accident which actually occurred, or, in other words, he did not have that control of his car required under the conditions, considering the exceedingly narrow streets through which he was running and which he was crossing. The driver of the hearse, so far as the record shows, had no notice that the street car was approaching, and entering and crossing, as he did and having nearly crossed the street, he had the right of way. The car had no paramount right of way over the vehicle at the intersection or crossing of the streets. The rights of each were equal.

Upon the question of the duty of a street railway company operating in the streets of a city, there have been literally hundreds of decisions in the United States as well as in the different states of Europe. In the United States, especially, for the reason that the facts are found by a jury, and the question of negligence or the lack of care or the exercise of care has so largely depended upon the peculiar circumstances, perhaps existing at the time of the trial only, it is futile to attempt to harmonize the rules as to what particular set of facts will or will not constitute negligence. There are, however, some general rules relating to the duty and obligations of those who use the public thoroughfares, whether they be pedestrians, carriages, or street car companies that are well recognized. They may be stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. The entire public as a right to the use of the public highways and streets of the city. A street car company has no paramount right of way over pedestrians or vehicles at street crossings. The rights of each are equal. (Joyce on Electric Railways, section 589.)

Second. This right in the street is equal and each may use it to his best advantage, having a just regard for the equal rights of others. (O’Neil v. Railroad Company, 129 N. Y., 125.)

Third. The right to use the street for lawful purposes is not different or enlarged or diminished simply because one uses it in one way as a pedestrian or another uses it in another way with his horses and carriages and still another uses it by other means of locomotion. However, it may be that certain portions of the street may be designated or especially prepared for pedestrians and another portion for carriages, in which case if a pedestrian should use that portion assigned for horses and carriages or vice versa, a different degree of care might be required.

Fourth. The mere fact that a car company has been permitted to operate its cars in the streets has in noway, in the absence of express provisions of law, abridged or lessened the rights of others who desire to make use of the streets. Owing to the fact, however, that a street car runs upon rails fixed in place, it must follow the track. Other persons using that portion of the street must recognize this fact, and, therefore, the "rules of the road" with reference to turning out, etc., do not apply to such companies.

Fifth. The laying down of rails in the streets of a city and the running of street cars over them for the accommodation of persons desiring to travel in that way on the streets is only a later mode of using the land as a way — using it for the very purpose for which it was originally taken. This use of the street may be a change in the mode, but it is not a change in the use and purpose for which streets are dedicated. The land is still used for a highway. This rule of law applies equally whether the motor for propelling the car is a horse or electricity.

Sixth. The people of a city and vehicles of whatever kinds, in the absence of express legislation, have the same right to pass along an intersecting street as a street car to go across it. The car has a right to cross and must cross the street, and pedestrians and vehicles have a right to cross and must cross the railroad track; neither has a superior right over the other; their rights are equal.

Seventh. The drivers and conductors of street railway cars, whatever the mode of power, have, in general, the same rights and duties, and no greater and no less than those who manage other vehicles crossing their course.

Suppose, for example, that a street railway company should operate two lines of cars on cross streets in the same city, would the company allow its employees to cross an intersecting street with its cars without having the car under such complete control that it might be stopped at any moment in order to avoid collision? This question the railroad company, of course, would answer in the negative. This rule would be adopted and enforced simply out of the abundance of caution to protect its own property and the lives of its patrons, but the crossing lines have no greater right simply because they are owned and operated by the same company. The same rules must be enforced when such crossing lines are controlled by different companies, or otherwise there would be endless confusion and injury. The street car company having no greater rights in the streets than other carriages, etc., then the same degree of care must be exercised as to carriages as would be exercised as to other cars crossing streets.

Eighth. One about to drive across a street car track at a public street crossing is not required to look along the whole length of the visible track to see if a car is coming, but only far enough to warrant an ordinarily careful and prudent man, having in mind his own safety, under like circumstances, to conclude that no car is in such proximity, as, if properly managed, to endanger his safety in crossing.

Ninth. Negligence in approaching the crossing of a street car track, without having his horses under control, will not preclude a recovery for injuries which he receives by a collision with a street car in attempting to cross in front of the car, if at the time he discovered the car the circumstances were such as to justify a prudent man in attempting to make the crossing. (Garritty, etc., v. Detroit Street Railway Company, 37 Lawyers’ Reports Annotated, 529.)

Tenth. The right which a street car (whatever be it motive power) has in a highway or street is not in its nature higher than the right of other travelers, but is a common right with the others, the exercise of which the street car and the other travelers shall use and conduct so as not to interfere unreasonably with the just rights of each.

With reference to the second above assignment of error, the defendant and appellant cites many cases in support of his argument that the plaintiff by his own negligence contributed to his injuries and, therefore, can not recover. This court in a divided opinion (Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co.) has repudiated the doctrine of contributory negligence as adopted in the United States and England and has adopted in its stead a doctrine which might be designated a proportional contributory negligence doctrine. This doctrine must stand until it is overruled, whether we agree with it or not. Mr. Justice Tracay wrote that opinion. The doctrine established in the majority opinion seems to have been taken from the jurisprudence of France, Spain, and Canada. (Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. Rep., 359, 371, 372.) In that case this court adopted the doctrine that the contributory negligence of the person injured had the effect only of reducing the amount of damages which he might recover, and cited decisions of the supreme court of France in its support. The court further held that contributory negligence did not exonerate the defendants whose fault had been the immediate cause of the accident, but entitled them to a reduction of damages only.

Upon the question of the amount of damages, the only proof is that found in the testimony of the plaintiff himself. He testified that the damages were "in the neighborhood of P500." From the record it appears that the defendant, through its claim agent, indicated to the plaintiff that P200 would be paid to settle the claim made by the plaintiff. The lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for P300 and costs.

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that in view of all the facts, the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Carson and Willard, JJ., dissent.

Separate Opinions


TRACEY, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The driver of the plaintiff’s wagon was guilty of negligence which contributed as a cause to the accident itself, and for that reason the plaintiff should not recover. The rule of contributory negligence in this jurisdiction was laid down in the Rakes case (7 Phil. Rep., 359) to be that, where the negligence of the party injured has contributed only to his own injury, he may recover his proportional damages, but when it has contributed as a cause to the accident itself, he can not recover, the court saying at page 374:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party shall be considered immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple. Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it, but contributing to his own proper hurt. For instance, the cause of the accident under review as the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it. This produced the event giving occasion for damages; that is, the sinking of the track and sliding of the iron rails. To this event, the act of the plaintiff in walking by the side of the car did not contribute, although it was an element of the damage which came to himself. Had the crosspiece been out of place wholly or partly through his act or omission of duty, that would have been one of the determining causes of the event or accident for which he would have been responsible. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he can not recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the prevailing American rule, the plaintiff can not recover if chargeable with contributory negligence of any kind.

In this case, the plaintiff’s servant, the driver of his wagon, testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"And we were approaching Calle Cabildo, we did not hear anything to show that a street car was coming, and so I did not slacken the speed of my horse, and when I was crossing the track at Calle Cabildo, coming along Calle Victoria, the carriage was struck by a street car.

"Q. How far were you on the track when you noticed the car coming?

A. The horse was already on the track where the street cars pass by.

"Q. Did you hold up the horse or try to go ahead?

"A. I continued driving ahead, so that the street car would not catch us.

"Q. How far away was the car when you first saw it?

"A. I did not pay any attention to the distance of the car, I only paid attention to my own rig, to avoid its being struck by the street car.

"Q. Where did the accident happen?

"A. On Calle Cabildo.

"Q. And what other street?

"A. Crossing Calle Cabildo, going along Calle Victoria.

"Q. Are the corners of the street there very sharp?

"A. Yes, sir; they are sharp.

"Q. And coming up Calle Victoria you can not see down Calle Cabildo until you are about to cross?

"A. Yes, sir; until you get to the corner you can not see Calle Cabildo.

"Q. What part of the carriage did this street car strike.

"A. I could not tell you, because when the street car struck the carriage I fell from the box and do not know what happened.

"Q. At what speed were you going?

"A. Not very fast and not very slow, the horse was on a trot.

"Q. Is this a very fast horse?

"A. No, sir; not very fast.

"Q. Did you have him under control at that time?

"A. Yes, sir."cralaw virtua1aw library

Antonio Legarda, a passenger on the car, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Then I put my head out of the window on the right hand side of the car as going on, and I saw a horse pulling a wagon and observed that the driver held the reins very tight, then I withdrew my head from the window and saw the wagon just in front of the street car at approximately the distance of one meter or a meter and a half from the driver of the wagon to the street car.

"Q. Do you know at what speed the horse was going before the collision?

"A. At the moment before the street car struck the wagon, it was going very slow, and it seems to me that the cochero was pulling on the reins.

"Q. And the first thing you saw when you looked out of the window was the cochero?

"A. No, sir; I saw about two-thirds of the horses.

"Q. Do you know whereabouts the street car struck the wagon?

"A. On the rear part, about the rear wheel."cralaw virtua1aw library

Matias Enrique, a policeman, also a passenger on the car, testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Did you see the undertaker’s wagon before the car struck it?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. From which direction was the wagon coming?

"A. From the left-hand side, going in the direction of Calle Palacio.

"Q. At what speed was the wagon going before it was struck?

"A. It was a big horse and it was going quite fast.

"Q. How fast was the street car going?

"A. It was going very slow because a woman passenger had just got off the car.

"Q. State whether or not the gong of the car was rung before coming to the corner.

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. In what part of the car were you standing?

"A. I was on the first seat, first class."cralaw virtua1aw library

Eulalio Atillo, the motorman, said "and as a matter of fact the street car struck the rear part of the wagon and I could reach the wagon with my hand."cralaw virtua1aw library

Juan Ignacio, another passenger, testified "and as a matter of fact, the wagon struck in the rear part and the motorman was ringing the bell all the time."cralaw virtua1aw library

The two streets in question, like most of those in Intramuros, are narrow, with scant sidewalks and lined with solid buildings, meeting at right angles, so that coming down one street it is impossible to see up the other until almost in the crossing roadway. To approach this crossing with a horse at a fast trot, without slackening speed, without listening, and without noticing the rumble of the car (waiving the disputed question of the ringing of the bell), all time knowing that cars were continually crossing there, was negligence on the part of the driver. Street cars could not run at a rate of speed to render them of service to the public were it necessary to so slow them down that they could be stopped on the instant of the breaking forth from cross streets of vehicles traveling too fast to be pulled up before crossing the track. Indeed, to control the heavy cars of modern street railways to this extent, would be impossible. Approaching such corners the motorman of the car is obliged to be on his guard and on the lookout for crossing vehicles, and an equivalent duty rests upon the drivers of those vehicles to be on the lookout for the car.

In O’Neil v. The Dry Dock Railroad Company (129 N. Y., 125), Judge Earl well states the law of city street crossings. Referring to vehicles traveling along the railway tracks, he observes (p. 130):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As to such vehicles, the railways here the paramount right to be exercised in a reasonable and prudent manner. But a railway crossing a street stand upon a different footing. The car has the right to cross and must cross the street, and the vehicle has the right to cross and must cross the railroad track. Neither has a superior right to the other. The right of each must be exercised with due regard to the right of the other, and the right of each must be exercised in a reasonable and careful manner, so as not unreasonably to abridge or interfere with the right of the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

It was the duty of the driver of the wagon on reaching the crossing to look for an approaching street car. Had he done so, he could not have failed to observe it. That he did not do so, is apparent from his frank testimony; that he had ample time to do so, is indicated from the fact that the car struck the rear part of the wagon. He either did not look for the car, or he saw it and took his chance of clearing the crossing. A grosser case of contributory negligence can hardly be found in the books. It contributed to the accident itself, and, applying the rule of the Rakes case, the plaintiff should not recover.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





February-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4206 February 1, 1909 - VICENTE M. SANDOVAL v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 4717 February 1, 1909 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. TOMAS LEDESMA

    012 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 4737 February 1, 1909 - ATANASIO PANDAQUILA v. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 4785 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 4839 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SY QUIAT

    012 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 4852 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE CALIMAG

    012 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 4373 February 2, 1909 - SAMUEL BISCHOFF v. JUAN D. POMAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4589 February 3, 1909 - GERONIMO DE GUZMAN v. JOAQUINA ORTIZ

    012 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

    012 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 4904 February 5, 1909 - ROSALIA MARTINEZ v. ANGEL TAN

    012 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 4723 February 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 4566 February 9, 1909 - YUENG SHENG EXCHANGE AND TRADING COMPANY v. G. URRUTIA & CO., ET AL.

    012 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 4910 February 10, 1909 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION VACANI v. ENRIQUE LLOPIS

    012 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. 4415 February 13, 1909 - PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL. v. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 4758 February 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. T. E. SANTOS

    013 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4794 February 16, 1909 - WARNER v. ROMAN AND CIRILO JAUCIAN

    013 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

    013 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 4790 February 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION

    013 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 4216 February 19, 1909 - KUENZLE & STEREIFF v. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL.

    013 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4943 February 19, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. ANGEL LUNA

    013 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 4939 February 20, 1909 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ESTEBAN SOLON

    013 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5028 February 20, 1909 - JUANA VALENCIA v. CARMEN DE ROXAS

    013 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 5085 February 20, 1909 - IN RE: JUAN TOLEDO

    013 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 4386 February 24, 1909 - CHANG YONG TEK v. GENEROSA SANTOS

    013 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 4868 February 24, 1909 - JUAN SISON v. FAUSTINO RAMOS

    013 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 4878 February 27, 1909 - IN RE: JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARINAS v. VICENTE LAVIN

    013 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 4978 March 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO MABILING

    013 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 4761 March 2, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. MARIANO FUENTEBELLA

    013 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 4874 March 2, 1909 - MARIANO VELOSO v. ANICETA FONTANOSA

    013 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4899 March 2, 1909 - JUANA DIZON v. EDMUNDO ULLMANN

    013 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 4443 March 4, 1909 - CHO CHUNG LUNG v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 4929 March 5, 1909 - JUAN BUENCAMINO v. NICASIA VICEO

    013 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 4979 March 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR ABLANA

    013 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 3545 March 6, 1909 - REGINO ARISTON v. MANUEL CEA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3805 March 6, 1909 - ALBINO SARMIENTO v. IGNACIO VILLAMOR

    013 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 4202 March 9, 1909 - MAMERTO GILLESANIA, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENASALVAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4714 March 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO BURIAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 5099 March 9, 1909 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. GRANT TRENT

    013 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 5144 March 9, 1909 - BEHN, MEYER & CO., LTD. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4119 March 11, 1909 - EUGENIA PAGALARAN v. VALENTIN BALLATAN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 5000 March 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR SANTO NIÑO

    013 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 5007 March 11, 1909 - SONG FO & CO. v. TIU CA SONG

    013 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 5013 March 11, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIA

    013 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 5200 March 11, 1909 - VICENTE BANDOY v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    013 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 3894 March 12, 1909 - JUAN IBAÑEZ DE ALCOA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 4555 March 12, 1909 - SEVERO HERNANDO v. SEVERO SAMBRANO

    013 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 4962 March 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE AGBAYANI

    013 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5030 March 12, 1909 - JUAN M. MANZANO v. JOSE TAN SUNCO

    013 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 4802 March 13, 1909 - ANDRES PUIG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO MERCADO

    013 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4776 March 18, 1909 - MANUEL ORMACHEA TIN-CONGCO v. SANTIAGO TRILLANA

    013 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 5002 March 18, 1909 - MARTIN BELEN, ET AL. v. ALEJO BELEN

    013 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 3678 March 19, 1909 - CELESTINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. JUANA MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 4898 March 19, 1909 - SALVADOR GUERRERO v. LEOPOLDO TERAN

    013 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 4114 March 20, 1909 - JUAN BRUSAS v. EUTIQUIO INFANTE

    013 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 4861 March 20, 1909 - F. W. PRISING v. MILTON E. SPRINGER

    013 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 2935 March 23, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE I. FRANK

    013 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 3643 March 23, 1909 - AMBROSIA POSTIGO v. DOLORES BORJAL

    013 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 3683 March 23, 1909 - MARIANO PERFECTO v. MUNICIPALITY OF GUINOBATAN

    013 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 4275 March 23, 1909 - PAULA CONDE v. ROMAN ABAYA

    013 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 4610 March 23, 1909 - AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES v. FLORA BROTO

    013 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 4891 March 23, 1909 - SOFIA DEVESA v. CRISPIN ARBES

    013 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 5045 March 23, 1909 - GUILLERMO BOWLER v. PASTRO ALCAZAR

    013 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 4796 March 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO PEREZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 4912 March 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIA GUY-SAYCO

    013 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5008 March 25, 1909 - IN RE: MANUELA AMANCIO TOMAS, ET AL. v. JORGE PARDO

    013 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 3413 March 27, 1909 - POMPOSA BONJOC, ET AL. v. CANDELARIO CUISON

    013 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. 3876 March 27, 1909 - RUFINA YATCO v. JESUALDO GANA

    013 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 4053 March 27, 1909 - IN RE: SERAFIN CANO URQUISA

    013 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 4575 March 27, 1909 - TEODORICA ENDENCIA CUSAR v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 4783 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO J. BUZON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    013 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 4799 March 27, 1909 - AGRIPINO SEGOVIA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ALBAY, ET AL.

    013 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 4825 March 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO SANCHEZ

    013 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 4882 March 27, 1909 - RUPERTO MONTINOLA v. LUCRECIO HOFILENA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 4937 March 27, 1909 - CRISPULO SIDECO v. FRANCISCO PASCUA

    013 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 4946 March 27, 1909 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIA DEL CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    013 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 4966 March 27, 1909 - LUCIO BUZON v. MAXIMO LICAUCAO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 5074 March 27, 1909 - VICENTA FRANCO v. C. W. O’BRIEN

    013 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 4192 March 29, 1909 - DAVID SALVACION v. EUSTAQUIO SALVACION

    013 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 4559 March 29, 1909 - TOMAS S. GUISON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    013 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 4952 March 29, 1909 - TOMAS OLINO v. MARIANO MEDINA

    013 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 4329 March 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO MAGCOMOT, ET AL.

    013 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 4226 March 31, 1909 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. CANDIDA OBED, ET AL.

    013 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4380 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO ANABAN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 4462 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 4705 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONINA LAMPANO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4885 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VIDAL ROLDAN

    013 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 4894 March 31, 1909 - GEO WHALEN v. PASIG IRON WORKS

    013 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 4911 March 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    013 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 5029 April 1, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. EL BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO

    013 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 4957 April 2, 1909 - MIGUEL PASCUAL v. MACARIO ANGELES, ET AL.

    013 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 4992 April 2, 1909 - AGUSTIN GA. GAVIERES v. ADMINISTRATORS OF LUIS PENA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 5012 April 2, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF U.S. IN THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERDO CARMEN, ET AL.

    013 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 4129 April 12, 1909 - ESTEBAN BERSABAL v. ANTONIO BERNAL

    013 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 4130 April 12, 1909 - REFINO BANES, ET AL. v. JACINTO CORDERO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 4454 April 12, 1909 - EX PARTE JUAN ONDEVILLA, ET AL.

    013 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 4501 April 12, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GANSON

    013 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4922 April 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO REYES CARRILLO

    013 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 4502 April 13, 1909 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GANZON

    013 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 3075 April 14, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. PROVINCE OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    013 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 4394 April 19, 1909 - FRANCISCO T. FIGUERAS v. ROCHA & CO.

    013 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 4704 April 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN GIL

    013 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 4999 May 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO VARGAS

    013 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 4895 June 15, 1909 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. W. O. BINGHAM, ET AL.

    013 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 4773 July 13, 1909 - MANILA BUILDING and LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    013 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 4960 July 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO HERRERA

    013 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 4290 July 21, 1909 - ROBERT V. DELL v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    013 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 4881 July 24, 1909 - JOSE LIM v. DOMINGO LIM

    013 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 1917 July 26, 1909 - CATALINIBALDERAMA v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    013 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 5190 July 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CONSUELO

    013 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 5109 July 31, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BARBICHO

    013 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 2905 August 3, 1909 - LA VIUDA DE SOLER v. AURELIO RUSCA.

    013 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 3228 August 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. WENCESLAO MERCADO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 4163 August 4, 1909 - ED BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 2894 August 5, 1909 - JOSE LASERNA TUPAZ v. RAFAEL LOZADA

    013 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5114 August 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME ARREGLADO

    013 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 2085 August 10, 1909 - TIBURCIO SAENZ v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 5154 August 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SUPILA

    013 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 3666 August 17, 1909 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    013 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. 5184 August 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PLATON IBAÑEZ

    013 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 343 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL RIOTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4378 August 18, 1909 - CHAN KEEP, ET AL. v. LEON CHAN GIOCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 4507 August 18, 1909 - MACARIA MANUEL, ET AL. v. FRIDOLIN WIGETT, ET AL.

    014 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 4859 August 18, 1909 - MANUEL JIMENO, ET AL. v. LOPE GACILAGO

    014 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 5071 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO CAS

    014 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 5111 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 5220 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL PINDONG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5235 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CELESTINO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5110 August 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FABIANA LEGASPI, ET AL.

    014 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 4045 August 23, 1909 - ILDEFONSO DORONILA v. GRACIANO GONZAGA

    014 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 4674 August 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO PANALIGAN

    014 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 3377 August 24, 1909 - BONIFACIO PIMENTEL v. EUGENIO GUTIERREZ

    014 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4918 August 26, 1909 - FELICIANA DARIANO v. JOSE FERNANDEZ FIDALGO

    014 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 3989 August 28, 1909 - LI HANG SHEONG v. VENANCIO C. DIAZ

    014 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 4426 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FILOTEO

    014 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 5292 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MANALINDE

    014 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 5153 September 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME MIJARES

    014 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 5171 September 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LAO LOCK HING

    014 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 5126 September 2, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO APOSTOL

    014 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 3862 September 6, 1909 - JUAN G. BOSQUE v. YU CHIPCO

    014 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4437 September 9, 1909 - TOMAS OSMEÑA v. CENONA RAMA

    014 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4471 September 9, 1909 - DAMASA SEGUI v. CANDIDO SEGUI

    014 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 5273 September 9, 1909 - FRANCISCA JOSE v. WENCESLAUA DAMIAN

    014 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 5067 September 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO MANALO

    016 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5618 September 14, 1909 - IN RE: H. G. SMITH

    014 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 4177 September 15, 1909 - AGATON ARANETA v. BRAULIO MONTELIBANO

    014 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 4235 September 15, 1909 - SANTIAGO TIN FIAN v. PABLO TAN

    014 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 4963 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO CHICO

    014 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 5156 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN MISOLA

    014 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5165 September 15, 1909 - GERVASIO UNSON v. SEGUNDO ABRERA

    014 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 5185 September 15, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO MENESES

    014 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 5150 September 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARCIANO LOPEZ

    014 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 4236 September 18, 1909 - SANTIAGO TIU FIAN v. HILARIO YAP

    014 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4445 September 18, 1909 - CATALINA BUGNAO v. FRANCISCO UBAG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4609 September 18, 1909 - QUE YONG KENG v. RAFAEL TAN QUICO

    014 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 4694 September 18, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. MUN. OF ROSARIO

    014 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 4887 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 4973 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE CATIPON, ET AL.

    014 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 5003 September 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX DE JESUS

    014 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 5262 September 18, 1909 - FRANCISCO ROSA HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. MELECIO PADUA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 4263 September 22, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEFANIA MENDOZA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 4837 September 22, 1909 - FRANCISCO IMPERIAL v. JOSE ALEJANDRE

    014 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 4234 September 23, 1909 - RUPERTA ORAIS v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    014 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 4759 September 23, 1909 - SEBASTIAN CABILLAS v. ALFONSO APDUHAN, ET AL.

    014 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 4971 September 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AUGUSTUS HICKS

    014 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 5194 September 23, 1909 - CHINESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. PUA TE CHING, ET AL.

    014 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5108 September 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    014 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4526 October 4, 1909 - TOMAS FORTUNA v. RUFINO VILORIA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 4602 October 4, 1909 - JUAN CO v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    014 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 5332 October 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORO BAGUIO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 4663 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO CABOLA ET AL.

    016 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 4846 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MAQUIRAYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 4970 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO ARTICHO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 5138 October 9, 1909 - JOSE MCMICKING v. DOMINGO TREMOYA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5423 October 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPIO POQUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 4009 October 11, 1909 - NICOLASA ARINGO v. URBANA ARENA

    014 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 4339 October 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO TREYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 3865 October 16, 1909 - GREGORIO FERNANDEZ v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

    014 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4362 October 19, 1909 - INSULAR GOV’T. v. DOROTEO NICO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 4606 October 19, 1909 - JUAN RODRIGUEZ v. FINDLAY & CO.

    014 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. 5297 October 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MARTINA BACAS

    014 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 4935 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JAMES L. BROBST

    014 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 4998 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE C. SEDANO

    014 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5069 October 25, 1909 - TAN CHUCO v. YORKSHIRE FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE CO.

    014 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 5083 October 25, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. JOSE VILLAPANDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 5167 October 25, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MENESES

    014 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 5227 October 25, 1909 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 4102 October 26, 1909 - JOSE CARDELL v. RAMON MAÑERU, ET AL.

    014 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 5072 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO AUSTERO

    014 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. 5424 October 27, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO SOTO

    014 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4974 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 5098 October 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO MONASTERIAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4934 October 30, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. A. C. V. ROSA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 5100 November 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO BEDOYA

    014 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 5386 November 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ARSENIO PALACIO

    016 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 4975 November 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO NARVAS

    014 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 5373 November 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. CLAUDIO DE SILVA

    014 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 4947 November 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO RAYMUNDO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5181 November 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO ABAD

    014 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4932 November 16, 1909 - WARNER, BARNES & CO. v. RAMON F. SANTOS

    014 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5348 November 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJO PAGUIRIGAN

    014 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 5503 November 16, 1909 - CATALINA MONTEMAYOR v. MATEO CUNANAN

    014 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 4752 November 17, 1909 - FLORENTINO CORDERO v. PEDRO CABIGTING

    014 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5036 November 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIANO MALEZA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 5240 November 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LINO EGUIA LIM BUANCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 5432 November 20, 1909 - TOMAS INOCENCIO v. MIGUEL GATPANDAN, ET AL.

    014 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 4996 November 26, 1909 - VICTORIANO SIGUENZA v. MUN. OF HINIGARAN

    014 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 5009 November 26, 1909 - TOMAS SUNICO v. MANUEL RAMIREZ

    014 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 4976 November 27, 1909 - A. J. EVELAND v. EASTERN MINING CO.

    014 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 4709 November 29, 1909 - CHAN SUANCO v. DOROTEO ALONSO

    014 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 5115 November 29, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMANIEGO, ET AL.

    016 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 5208 December 1, 1909 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. JOSE TAN SUNCO ET AL.

    016 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 5044 December 1, 1909 - EDWIN CASE v. HEIRS OF TUASON Y SANTIBAÑEZ

    014 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 5075 December 1, 1909 - MAURICIO RAMIREZ v. SIMEON BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 4815 December 2, 1909 - LA YEBANA CO. v. FRANCISCO CHUA SECO & CO.

    014 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 5096 December 2, 1909 - RAMON MORTERA v. INOCENTE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 5244 December 2, 1909 - EULOGIO TRIA v. RAMON ORTIZ

    014 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5306 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO JARABAS

    014 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 5307 December 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE GONZAGA CHANGCO

    014 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 5210 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIA DE CHAVES

    014 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 5385 December 4, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. 5275 December 9, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA

    014 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 4871 December 10, 1909 - LEONCIO IMPERIAL v. ALFONSA TOLEDO

    014 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 5313 December 10, 1909 - JUANA ESPIRITU v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    014 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 5217 December 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL LOPEZ

    014 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 5344 December 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIANA DEUDA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 5202 December 16, 1909 - YAP UNKI v. CHUA JAMCO

    014 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 5295 December 16, 1909 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. MACKE & CHANDLER, ET AL.

    014 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 5393 December 16, 1909 - PEDRO TIRANGBUAYA, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    014 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 5200 December 17, 1909 - VICENTE BANDOY, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA LAGUNA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 5397 December 17, 1909 - FABIANA C. ARRIOLA v. CAROLINA GOMEZ DE LA SERNA

    014 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 4667 December 18, 1909 - GEO. M. LACK, ET AL. v. PANTALEONA ALONSO Y SAN LUIS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 5256 December 21, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTASIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    014 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 5329 December 21, 1909 - SABINA CRUZ HERRERA DE LUKBAN v. JOSE McMICKING

    014 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 5318 December 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL BUMANGLAG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 5534 December 23, 1909 - HERBERT S. WALKER, ET AL. v. JOSE MCMICKING

    014 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 4724 December 24, 1909 - GREGORIA MONTAÑANO v. SILVESTRE SUESA

    014 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 5760 December 24, 1909 - MARTIN OCAMPO, ET AL. v. J. C. JENKINS, ET AL.

    014 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 4280 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO BUSTOS

    013 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4206 February 1, 1909 - VICENTE M. SANDOVAL v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 4717 February 1, 1909 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. TOMAS LEDESMA

    012 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 4737 February 1, 1909 - ATANASIO PANDAQUILA v. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 4785 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 4839 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. SY QUIAT

    012 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 4852 February 1, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE CALIMAG

    012 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 4373 February 2, 1909 - SAMUEL BISCHOFF v. JUAN D. POMAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 4589 February 3, 1909 - GERONIMO DE GUZMAN v. JOAQUINA ORTIZ

    012 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 4838 February 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. LIM CO

    012 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 4013 February 4, 1909 - JUSTO GUIDO, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN DE BORJA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 4904 February 5, 1909 - ROSALIA MARTINEZ v. ANGEL TAN

    012 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 4723 February 8, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 4566 February 9, 1909 - YUENG SHENG EXCHANGE AND TRADING COMPANY v. G. URRUTIA & CO., ET AL.

    012 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 4910 February 10, 1909 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION VACANI v. ENRIQUE LLOPIS

    012 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. 4415 February 13, 1909 - PAULINO DOLIENDO, ET AL. v. SANTOS DEPIÑO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 4758 February 16, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. T. E. SANTOS

    013 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4794 February 16, 1909 - WARNER v. ROMAN AND CIRILO JAUCIAN

    013 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 4392 February 17, 1909 - PATRICIO UBEDA v. AGAPITO ZIALCITA

    013 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 4790 February 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CONCEPCION

    013 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 4216 February 19, 1909 - KUENZLE & STEREIFF v. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL.

    013 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4943 February 19, 1909 - JEREMIAH J. HARTY v. ANGEL LUNA

    013 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 4939 February 20, 1909 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. ESTEBAN SOLON

    013 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5028 February 20, 1909 - JUANA VALENCIA v. CARMEN DE ROXAS

    013 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 5085 February 20, 1909 - IN RE: JUAN TOLEDO

    013 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 4386 February 24, 1909 - CHANG YONG TEK v. GENEROSA SANTOS

    013 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 4868 February 24, 1909 - JUAN SISON v. FAUSTINO RAMOS

    013 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 4878 February 27, 1909 - IN RE: JOAQUINA MIJARES DE FARIÑAS v. VICENTE LAVIN

    013 Phil 63