Title
Cusi vs. Philippine National Railways
Case
G.R. No. L-29889
Decision Date
May 31, 1979
A 1963 collision at a railroad crossing in Paranaque led to severe injuries for Victorino Cusi and Pilar Pobre. The Supreme Court ruled PNR grossly negligent for inoperative warning devices and lack of flagman, awarding damages with legal interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29889)

Key Dates

Accident Date: October 5, 1963
Lower Court Decision Date: March 26, 1968
Supreme Court Decision Date: May 31, 1979

Applicable Law

The New Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly concerning negligence, and regulatory provisions under the Motor Vehicle Law (Act 3992).

Facts of the Case

On the night of the incident, the plaintiffs were returning home after attending a party in the United Housing Subdivision of Parañaque, Rizal. At approximately 11 P.M., they approached a railroad crossing where the level crossing bar was raised, and there were no operational warning signals. As Victorino Cusi decided to cross, a train collided with their vehicle. Both plaintiffs sustained severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries, with Pilar suffering debilitating effects on her professional life as a music teacher, and Victorino suffering brain injuries that hindered his business activities.

Trial Court Findings

The lower court found the defendant, Philippine National Railways, grossly negligent for failing to maintain functioning warning systems at the crossing. Key findings included that the signal devices were inoperative, there was no flagman present, and the locomotive driver failed to sound the whistle as the train approached the crossing. The court awarded the plaintiffs a total of P239,648.72 for their injuries, legal fees, and related expenses.

Appellate Review of Negligence

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of negligence, noting that the lower court's findings should be given serious consideration due to the trial judge's proximity to the witnesses and evidence. The Court asserted that gross negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, establishing that the railway had a duty to employ reasonable safety measures at crossings.

Standard of Care

Negligence was analyzed under the standard of care that reasonable individuals would exhibit under similar circumstances. The Court indicated that the absence of operational warning devices constituted negligence by the defendant. It highlighted that the public expects installed warning devices to function correctly, and their failure creates a dangerous situation.

Contributory Negligence Argument

The defendant raised the issue of contributory negligence, asserting that Cusi's failure to stop before crossing was a breach of the Motor Vehicle Law requiring complete stops at crossings. However, the Supreme Court countered this argument, stating that Cusi acted reasonably based on the apparent safety at the crossing. The guards’ absence and the operational safety signals led Cusi to justifiably slacken speed rather than come to a full stop.

Damages Assessment

The Court examined the damages awarded and found the claims for medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering reasonable and well-substantiated. It confirmed the actual expenses incurred, including significant medical treatment and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.