Case Digest (G.R. No. 15674)
Facts:
Consolacion Gabeto v. Agaton Araneta, G. R. No. 15674, October 17, 1921, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was Consolacion Gabeto, suing in her own right as the widow of Proceso Gayetano and as guardian ad litem of their three children; the defendant-appellant was Agaton Araneta. The action was tried in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of P3,000 for the wrongful death of Proceso Gayetano. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.On August 4, 1918, Proceso Gayetano and Basilio Llano hired a carromata driven by Julio Pagnaya near Plaza Gay in Iloilo to go to a cockpit on Calle Ledesma. As the driver turned and started, Araneta stepped into the street, laid hands on the reins and stopped the horse, asserting he had called the carromata first. The driver denied having seen Araneta's call and later attempted to pull the bridle free. In the course of attempting to free or later repair the bridle, the bit came out of the horse's mouth (or the throatlatch broke), and the driver alighted to fix the bridle and led the horse toward the curb. While the driver was engaged at the head of the horse, the animal became frightened, dragged a wheel onto the sidewalk, struck a police telephone box which crashed down, and then ran away at full speed. Proceso Gayetano either jumped or fell from the carromata during the runaway and sustained injuries from which he later died.
The testimony conflicted on whether Araneta's initial interference — including an alleged gesture that struck the horse's nose — directly caused the runaway, or whether the bit/bridle failure and subsequent handling by the driver were the operative causes. The Court of First...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court reverse the Court of First Instance's factual finding where there is conflicting testimony?
- Was Agaton Araneta legally responsible for the death of Proceso Gayetano — in other words, were Araneta's acts the proximate cause...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)