G.R. No. 2789 - Johnson vs. David

The action was initiated in the court of the Justice of the Peace of Manila by the plaintiff, William Johnson, to recover damages allegedly resulting from the negligence of the defendant, Cirilo David.
The first decision rendered by the Justice of the Peace favored the plaintiff, awarding $175 gold.
The defendant appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance in Manila.
The cause was then retried de novo in the Court of First Instance, leading to an initial judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P300.
The defendant, having defaulted in appearance, raised an exception on the following day, alleging that the judgment was contrary to law.
On October 11, 1904, the judge vacated the July 15, 1904, judgment and ordered a new trial, a decision made without prior notice or hearing for the defendant.
The new trial was held on January 25, 1905.
During this new trial, the plaintiff again presented evidence of damages and injuries, and a subsequent decision favored the plaintiff for P250 plus costs, rendered on January 22, 1905.
The defendant excepted this final decision and filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that it was contrary to law and the evidence, but the motion was denied.
The defendant subsequently filed a bill of exceptions regarding the proceedings.

The incident occurred on November 13, 1903.
It took place at a bridge in front of the Binondo Church in Manila, specifically where the approach from the bridge toward Calle San Fernando is located.

The plaintiff was riding a bicycle on the north side of the bridge in accordance with the local ordinance, maintaining a slow rate of speed.
The plaintiff attempted to alert the defendant’s cochero by ringing his bicycle bell.
Despite this, the plaintiff was unable to stop due to the presence of other carriages following him on the incline.

The defendant’s carriage was drawn by one horse and driven by a cochero.
The cochero was driving at a speed deemed unreasonable and faster than what was considered safe on the incline.
The defendant’s cochero made a detour to approach the bridge diagonally from the left side, which contributed to the collision.
The collision resulted in the plaintiff being unexpectedly thrown to the ground.

The plaintiff’s bicycle was largely damaged and practically destroyed, being run over by the horse and carriage after being dashed to the ground.
The plaintiff sustained injuries to his head and shoulders, with one shoulder injured to the extent of causing him to be incapacitated from performing manual labor for one month.
Financial losses included the deprivation of his monthly salary of P90 from his employment in the Quartermaster’s Department of the United States Army and damage valuation of the bicycle amounting to $35.

Evidence confirmed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendant’s cochero in driving the carriage.
No evidence was adduced to show that the defendant was negligent in employing, supervising, or having knowledge of the cochero's incompetence or general negligent character.
The defendant himself was not present in the carriage at the time of the accident.

Is the owner of a carriage liable for injuries caused by the negligence of his cochero when the owner himself is not present and has not exhibited any negligence in employing or supervising the employee?

Whether the negligent act of the cochero, who was driving the carriage without exercising due care, could be legally attributed to the owner under the existing provisions of the Civil Code.
How the enumeration of specific vicarious liabilities in the Civil Code (particularly Articles 1902 to 1910) affects the imposition of liability on the owner absent evidence of his personal negligence or fault.