Title
De Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co.
Case
G.R. No. L-8034
Decision Date
Nov 18, 1955
A train guard shot and killed a passenger due to a personal grudge; the Supreme Court ruled the employer not liable, as the act was outside the guard's duties and unforeseeable.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 165003)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Incident
    • On April 1, 1946, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Tomas Gillaco, a passenger, boarded the early morning train of the Manila Railroad Company from Calamba, Laguna to Manila.
    • The incident took place on the train as it reached Paco Railroad Station.
  • Details Involving the Employee and the Act
    • Emilio Devesa, a train guard employed by the Manila Railroad Company and assigned to the Manila-San Fernando (La Union) line, was present at Paco Station awaiting transportation to Tutuban, where he was to report for duty starting at 9:00 a.m.
    • Despite being an employee of the company, Devesa was not on his regular tour of duty since his work schedule was set to begin two hours later and his assigned route was different from the one carrying the victim.
  • Circumstances Leading to the Fatal Incident
    • It was established that Devesa harbored a long-standing personal grudge against Tomas Gillaco dating back to the Japanese occupation period.
    • Acting on this personal animosity, Devesa fired his company-furnished carbine at Gillaco when he saw him inside the train coach, leading to Gillaco’s death as a result of the gunshot wound.
  • Criminal Proceedings and Conviction
    • Emilio Devesa was subsequently convicted of homicide by final judgment of the Court of Appeals.
    • The Manila Railroad Company was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Laguna to pay damages amounting to P4,000 to the widow and children of the deceased, based on a stipulation of facts highlighting the operator’s duty of safe carriage.
  • Contentions and Defense Raised
    • The Manila Railroad Company contended that it could not be held liable as the employer of Devesa because the killing was not committed during the actual performance of its ordinary duties or service.
    • The company further argued that there was neither contractual (ex contractu) liability nor subsidiary criminal (ex delicto) liability, as the act fell outside the foreseen responsibilities under the contract of carriage.
  • Legal and Contractual Considerations
    • The underlying contractual obligation was that a contract of transportation inherently provides passengers with protection against acts of violence, including those by the carrier’s agents or employees.
    • However, protection under this duty was understood to extend only to those risks that the carrier could foresee or for which it could exercise due care and diligence, as guided by pre-existing jurisprudence and applicable provisions of the old Civil Code of 1889.

Issues:

  • Scope of Employer Liability
    • Whether the Manila Railroad Company could be held liable for the wrongful act committed by its employee, given that the act was driven by personal vendetta and occurred outside the employee’s prescribed duty.
    • Whether the principle of respondeat superior (employer’s liability for acts within the scope of employment) applies when the employee is acting solely on personal motives.
  • Nature of the Legal Liability
    • Whether the liability of the carrier under the contract of carriage was contractual (ex contractu) or whether it could also be extended as subsidiary criminal liability (ex delicto).
    • Whether the act of the employee, constituting an unforeseeable act of personal violence, could be excused as a “caso fortuito” under Article 1105 of the old Civil Code.
  • Foreseeability and Duty of Care
    • Whether the Manila Railroad Company could reasonably foresee and thus prevent any untoward incident arising from personal disputes among its employees that might affect passengers.
    • Whether the company bore the obligation to protect passengers against every possible act of personal malice by its employees, regardless of the employee’s duty assignment or schedule.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.