G.R. No. L-23908 - People vs. Aquino

Ignacio del Prado (plaintiff/appellee) filed an action against Manila Electric Company (defendant/appellant) to recover P50,000 damages for personal injuries.
The injuries were allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence in operating one of its streetcars in Manila.

Date and Location: November 18, 1925, near the intersection of R. Hidalgo Street and Mendoza Street, Manila.
Car No. 74, operated by motorman Teodorico Florenciano, had stopped at the appointed place to board passengers.
After resuming movement at a moderate speed, the plaintiff ran from the left side of the street to board the moving car.
Plaintiff raised his hand as a signal to board; motorman eased speed but did not stop.
Plaintiff grabbed the front left-hand perpendicular handpost with the left hand and placed his left foot on the platform.
Before plaintiff’s right foot reached the platform, motorman applied power causing a slight forward lurch of the car.
The sudden movement caused plaintiff’s foot to slip and hand to be jerked loose, resulting in a fall and crushing of right foot under the car.
Plaintiff’s right foot was amputated the next day.

Plaintiff’s witness Ciriaco Guevara stated plaintiff grasped the handpost with both hands and the motorman slowed slightly.
Motorman denied seeing plaintiff attempting to board, denied accelerating the car, and claimed ignorance of the accident until alerted afterward.
Court found motorman’s denial not credible, noting the close proximity and visibility from the motorman’s position.

No obligation exists for a streetcar to stop anywhere other than appointed stations for boarding.
Nevertheless, the motorman owed a duty not to increase the peril of a person attempting to board the car.
Premature acceleration by the motorman was found to breach this duty of care.
Relationship between carrier and passenger is contractual; failure to exercise due care is a breach (culpa contractual) per Civil Code Articles 1101, 1103, 1104.
The duty covers persons boarding and alighting the vehicle.
Precedent from *Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.* (38 Phil. 768): liability for contractual negligence distinguished from tort liability (culpa aquiliana).
Defendant’s plea of due diligence as a defense was held irrelevant because liability arose from breach of contractual duty, which does not admit this defense.
Plaintiff’s contributory negligence treated as mitigating, not defeating, liability under Article 1103.
The proximate cause was the motorman’s negligent acceleration, superseding the plaintiff’s negligence.
Doctrine of last clear chance applied, allowing recovery despite contributory negligence.
Damages reduced to P2,500 considering plaintiff’s partial earning capacity after amputation.

Motorman acted with ordinary prudence.
Plaintiff acted imprudently boarding a moving car and contributed solely to his injury.
No negligence by defendant.
Judgment of lower court should be revoked; defendant absolved of liability.

Whether the Manila Electric Company was negligent in operating the streetcar resulting in the plaintiff’s injury.
Whether the motorman breached his duty to refrain from increasing the plaintiff’s peril while attempting to board.
Whether plaintiff’s contributory negligence bars or mitigates recovery.
Whether the defendant can avail of the defense of due diligence to escape liability.
Proper amount of damages considering the injury sustained and circumstances.