Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1719)
Petitioner
The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company (Defendant-Appellant), alleging absence of legal duty or contributory fault by Rakes.
Respondent
M. H. Rakes (Plaintiff-Appellee), who suffered a leg injury requiring amputation when rails slipped from an overturned hand car.
Key Dates
• Accident: Shortly after a recent typhoon (exact date not specified).
• Decision by the Supreme Court: January 23, 1907.
Applicable Law
• Spanish Civil Code (in force in the Islands at the time):
– Arts. 1092, 1093 (distinguishing civil obligations from criminally punished negligence)
– Arts. 1902–1903 (liability for damage caused by fault or negligence, including that of one’s agents)
– Arts. 1101, 1103–1104 (liability for breach of contractual obligations)
• Spanish Penal Code: Arts. 568, 590 (definitions of criminal negligence), Arts. 19–20 (employer’s subsidiary criminal liability)
• Code of Criminal Procedure (Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), insofar as illustrative of civil-criminal remedies
Facts
- Two hand cars carried seven rails (560 lbs each) lengthwise without side guards, the rails overhanging both ends.
- The track rested on wood blocks or on piling at the water’s edge; no fish plates secured rail joints or stringer joints, and guard rails were absent.
- A recent typhoon wave dislodged a critical crosspiece (8×8 timber), causing the track to sag.
- No prompt inspection or repair was made; a visible depression persisted. A coworker warned the foreman (McKenna) the day before the accident.
- While working at the side of the leading car, the track gave way, the car overturned, the rails slid off and crushed Rakes’s leg.
Issues
- Whether the defendant breached a duty to maintain safe track and appliances, giving rise to civil liability.
- Whether Rakes assumed the risk or was a “fellow-servant” responsible for the negligence of co-workers.
- Whether Rakes’s own negligence in continuing to work on the depressed track and walking alongside the car bars or reduces his recovery.
- Whether negligence remedies lie only in criminal proceedings or also in civil courts.
Majority Opinion (Justice Tracey)
- Employer’s Duty and Civil Liability
– In the absence of special compensation legislation, general principles of the Civil Code impose a contractual obligation on an employer to provide and maintain safe appliances.
– Articles 1092–1093: Liability for fault not punished by law falls under civil obligations (Arts. 1902–1903).
– Articles 1101, 1103: Where contractual relations exist (employer–employee), breach of the implied duty to maintain safe work conditions gives rise to civil liability. - Civil vs. Criminal Remedy
– Civil liability is independent of criminal prosecution; the injured party need not pursue a criminal complaint against a company representative before suing civilly. - Fellow-Servant Rule
– The court rejects the English-American “fellow-servant” defense; an employer cannot escape liability by attributing negligence to another employee. - Contributory Negligence
– The court declines the strict common-law rule that any contributory negligence bars recovery.
– It adopts a comparative approach: where the plaintiff’s negligence contributes only to his own injury (not to the primary accident), damages may be reduced rather than wholly barred.
– The accident’s immediate cause was the track’s weakened support; Rakes’s walking at the side contributed only to the extent of his personal injury. - Damages Apportioned
– Trial court fixed total damages at ₱5,000.
– Under comparative principles, Rakes bears half the fault; recovery is reduced by ₱2,500.
Holding and Disposition
• The defendant breached its duty to maintain safe track and appliances.
• Rakes’s contributory negligence does not bar recovery but warrants a 50 % reduction in damages.
• Judgment affirmed in part and modified: Rakes recovers
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-1719)
Facts
- M. H. Rakes was one of eight laborers employed by the defendant to transport iron rails (560 lbs each) from a barge to the company’s yard in Manila.
- Two hand cars ran on parallel tracks; seven rails were piled lengthwise on crosspieces secured to the cars, with ends projecting beyond the cars and no side guards.
- The tramway track comprised wood blocks (6×8 in.) on land, supporting stringers (6×8 in., 24–30 ft long), with ties and rails fastened atop; near the water’s edge, blocks were replaced by piled supports capped by timbers.
- There were no fish plates at rail joints or stringer joints. Plaintiff asserted only one hand car was used; defendant proved two.
- After a typhoon, a crosspiece (or piling) became dislodged by bay water; at the track’s sagging point, a tie broke, the car upset, the rails slid off, and struck plaintiff, fracturing his leg (later amputated).
- No prompt repair was made; a visible depression (½ in.–1½ in.) remained, and a fellow worker warned the foreman but was rebuffed. The track was later mended merely by resetting timber and replacing the tie.
- Defendant had no organized inspection or maintenance system following the typhoon.
Procedural History
- Trial court found defendant negligent for failing to repair a known dangerous depression in the track and entered judgment for plaintiff.
- Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Did the defendant breach its duty by failing to build, maintain, and inspect the tramway in a reasonably safe condition?
- Is the remedy for workplace injuries through negligence exclusively criminal under Spanish‐Philippine codes, or is a civil action available?
- What standard of duty does an employer owe an employee absent special legislation?
- Does plaintiff’s own conduct constitute contributory negligence that bars or merely red