Download pdf - Deguia v Manila Electirc

8/9/2019 Deguia v Manila Electirc

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

G.R. No. L-!""# $anua%& '() *'+MANUEL ,E GUA)

plainti-appellant)/s.

T0E MANLA ELECTRC RALROA, 1 LG0TCOMPAN2)

3efen3ant-appellant.

Su4ulon5 an3 Est%a3a) C%oss6el3 an3 O7B%ien an3 8%ancisco A. ,el5a3o fo%

plainti-appellant.La9%ence an3 Ross fo% 3efen3ant-appellant.

STREET)

$.:

This is an appeal p%osecute3 both b& the plainti an3 the 3efen3ant f%o4 a

;u354ent of the Cou%t of 8i%st nstance of the Cit& of Manila) 9he%eb& the plainti

9as a9a%3e3 the su4 of Pal) a no%the%n

subu%b of the cit& of Manila. t appea%s that) at about (o7cloc? p.4.) of the 3ate

4entione3) the plainti Manuel 3e Guia) a ph&sician %esi3in5 in Caloocan )boa%3e3 a

ca% at the en3 of the line 9ith the intention of co4in5 to the cit&. At about "+ 4ete%sf%o4 the sta%tin5 point the ca% ente%e3 a s9itch) the plainti %e4ainin5 on the bac?

platfo%4 hol3in5 the han3le of the %i5ht-han3 3oo%. Upon co4in5 out of the s9itch)

the s4all 9heels of the %ea% t%uc? left the t%ac?) %an fo% a sho%t 3istance alon5 the

4aca3a4 6llin5) 9hich 9as @ush 9ith the %ails) an3 st%uc? a conc%ete post at the

left of the t%act. The post 9as shatte%e3 an3 as the ca% stoppe3 the plainti 9as

th%o9n a5ainst the 3oo% 9ith so4e /iolence) %ecei/in5 b%uises an3 possibl& ce%tain

inte%nal in;u%ies) the etent of 9hich is a sub;ect of 3ispute. The t%ial cou%t foun3

that the 4oto%4an of the 3e%aile3 ca% 9as ne5li5ent in ha/in5 4aintaine3 too %api3

a spee3. This infe%ence appea%s to be base3 chie@& upon the %esults of the shoc?)

in/ol/in5 the shatte%in5 of the post an3 the ben3in5 of the ?in5post of the ca%. t is

insiste3 fo% the 3efen3ant co4pan& that the 3e%ail4ent 9as 3ue to the p%esence of

a stone) so4e9hat la%5e% than a 5oose e55) 9hich ha3 beco4e acci3entall& lo35e3

bet9een the %ails at the ;unctu%e of the s9itch an3 9hich 9as unobse%/e3 b& the

4oto%4an. n this /ie9 the 3e%ail4ent of the ca% is suppose3 to be 3ue to

casus fo%tuitos


2/7


3/7

has %efe%ence to liabilit& incu%%e3 b& ne5li5ence in the absence of cont%actual

%elation) that is) to the

culpa a=uiliana

of the ci/il la9. t 9as the%efo%e i%%ele/ant fo% the3efen3ant co4pan& to p%o/e) as it

3i3) that theco4pan& ha3 ee%cise3 3ue ca%e in the selectionan3 inst%uction of the

4oto%4an 9ho 9as in cha%5eof its ca% an3 that he 9as in fact an epe%ience3

an3%eliable se%/ant.At this point) ho9e/e%) it shoul3 be obse%/e3 thatalthou5h in

case li?e this the 3efen3ant 4ustans9e% fo% the conse=uences of the ne5li5ence of

its e4plo&ee) the cou%t has the po9e% to 4o3e%ateliabilit& acco%3in5 to the

ci%cu4stances of the caseDa%t. +") Ci/. Co3e: 8u%the%4o%e) 9e thin? itob/ious

that an e4plo&e% 9ho has in fact 3ispla&e33ue 3ili5ence in choosin5 an3 inst%uctin5

hisse%/ants is entitle3 to be consi3e%e3 a 3ebto% in5oo3 faith) 9ithin the 4eanin5 of

a%ticle +F of thesa4e Co3e. Const%uin5 these t9o p%o/isionsto5ethe%) appl&in5

the4 to the facts of this case) it%esults that the 3efen3ant7s liabilit& is li4ite3 tosuch

3a4a5es as 4i5ht) at the ti4e of the acci3ent)ha/e been %easonabl& fo%eseen as ap%obableconse=uence of the ph&sical in;u%ies in@icte3 uponthe plainti an3 9hich

9e%e in fact a necessa%&%esult of those in;u%ies. The%e is nothin5 no/el in

thisp%oposition) since both the ci/il an3 the co44on la9a%e a5%ee3 upon the point

that the 3a4a5eso%3ina%il& %eco/e%able fo% the b%each of acont%actual obli5ation)

a5ainst a pe%son 9ho hasacte3 in 5oo3 faith) a%e such as can %easonabl& befo%eseen

at the ti4e the obli5ation is cont%acte3. n

,a&9alt /s. Co%po%acion 3e PP. A5ustinos Recoletos

D"* Phil.) #(F) 9e sai3: The etent of the liabilit&fo% the b%each of a cont%act 4ust

be 3ete%4ine3 inthe li5ht of the situation in eistence at the ti4e thecont%act is4a3e an3 the 3a4a5es o%3ina%il&%eco/e%able a%e in all e/ents li4ite3 to such

as4i5ht be %easonabl& fo%eseen in the li5ht of thefacts then ?no9n to the

cont%actin5 pa%ties. This b%in5s us to consi3e% the a4ount 9hich 4a& bea9a%3e3 to

the plainti as 3a4a5es. Upon this pointthe t%ial ;u35e foun3 that) as a %esult of the

ph&sicalan3 ne%/ous 3e%an5e4ent %esultin5 f%o4 theacci3ent) ,%. ,e Guia 9as

unable p%ope%l& to atten3to his p%ofessional labo%s fo% th%ee 4onths an3suspen3e3

his p%actice fo% that pe%io3. t 9as alsop%o/e3 b& the testi4on& of the plainti that

hiscusto4a%& inco4e) as a ph&sician) 9as about P"++pe% 4onth. The t%ial ;u35e

acco%3in5l& allo9e3 P*++)as 3a4a5es fo% loss of p%ofessional ea%nin5s.

Thisallo9ance is attac?e3 upon appeal b& the 3efen3antas ecessi/e both as to the

pe%io3 an3 %ate of allo9ance. Upon ea4inin5 the e/i3ence 9e fell3isincline3 to

3istu%b this pa%t of the ;u354ent)thou5h it 4ust be conce3e3 that the esti4ate of

thet%ial ;u35e on this point 9as libe%al enou5h to theplainti.Anothe% ite4 allo9e3

b& the t%ial ;u35e consists of P")*++) 9hich the plainti is suppose3 to ha/e lostb&

%eason of his inabilit& to accept a position as3ist%ict health oHce% in Occi3ental

Ne5%os. tappea%s in this connection that M%. Alunan)%ep%esentati/e f%o4 Occi3ental

Ne5%os) ha3 as?e3,%. Montinola) 9ho suppose3l& ha3 the autho%it& to4a?e the


4/7

appoint4ent) to no4inate the plainti tosuch position. The ;ob 9as suppose3 to be

5oo3 fo%t9o &ea%s) 9ith a sala%& of P)


5/7

se/e%al ti4es spit up bloo3)a 4anifestation no 3oubt 3ue to the eects of

theb%uises %ecei/e3 in his si3e. The net 3a& ,octo% ,eGuia 9ent into Manila to

consult anothe% ph&sician),octo% Miciano) an3 3u%in5 the cou%se of a fe99ee?s he

calle3 into consultation othe% 3octo%s 9ho9e%e int%o3uce3 as 9itnesses in his behalf

at thet%ial of this case. Acco%3in5 to the testi4on& of these 9itnesses) as 9ell as

that of the plainti hi4self) the s&4pto4s of ph&sical an3 ne%/ous3e%an5e4ent inthe plainti spee3il& 3e/elope3 inpo%tentous 3e5%ee.Othe% epe%ts 9e%e int%o3uce3

b& the 3efen3ant9hose testi4on& ten3e3 to sho9 that the plainti7sin;u%ies)

consi3e%e3 in thei% ph&sical eects) 9e%et%i/ial an3 that the atten3ant ne%/ous

3e%an5e4ent)9ith its co4plicate3 t%ain of ail4ents) 9as 4e%el&si4ulate3.Upon this

=uestion the opposin5 4e3ical epe%ts/entilate3 a consi3e%able 4ass of

p%ofessionallea%nin5 9ith %efe%ence to the natu%e an3 eects of the baJin5 3isease

?no9n as t%au4atic neu%osis) o%t%au4atic h&ste%ia I a topic 9hich has been

theoccasion of 4uch cont%o/e%s& in actions of thischa%acte% in the t%ibunals of

Eu%ope an3 A4e%ica. The sub;ect is one of consi3e%able inte%est f%o4 a4e3ico-le5al

point of /ie9) but 9e 3ee4 itunnecessa%& in this opinion to ente% upon a3iscussion

of its /olu4inous lite%atu%e. t is enou5hto sa& that in ou% opinion the plainti7s case

fo%la%5e 3a4a5es in %espect to his suppose3incapacitation fo% futu%e p%ofessional

p%actice is not4a3e out. Of cou%se in this ;u%is3iction 3a4a5es cannot be assesse3

in fa/o% of the plainti asco4pensation fo% the ph&sical o% 4ental pain 9hichhe 4a&

ha/e en3u%e3 DMa%celo

/s.

Kelasco) Phil.Rep. '(F an3 the e/i3ence %elatin5 to the in;u%ies)both ete%nal

an3 inte%nal) %ecei/e3 b& hi4 4ust beea4ine3 chie@& in its bea%in5 upon his

4ate%ial9elfa%e) that is) in its %esults upon his ea%nin5capacit& an3 the epenses

incu%%e3 in %esto%ation tothe usual con3ition of health. The e/i3ence befo%e us

sho9s that i44e3iatel&afte% the acci3ent in =uestion ,octo% ,e Guia)sensin5 in the

situation a possibilit& of p%o6t)3e/ote3 hi4self 9ith 5%eat assi3uit& to thep%o4otion

of this liti5ation an3 9ith the ai3 of hiso9n p%ofessional ?no9le35e) supple4ente3

b&su55estions obtaine3 f%o4 his p%ofessional f%ien3san3 associates) he en/elope3

hi4self 4o%e o% lessunconsciousl& in an at4osphe%e of 3elusion 9hich%en3e%e3 hi4

incapable of app%eciatin5 at thei% t%ue/alue the s&4pto4s of 3iso%3e% 9hich

he3e/elope3. The t%ial cou%t 9as in ou% opinion full& ;usti6e3 in %e;ectin5 the

ea55e%ate3 esti4ate of 3a4a5es thus c%eate3.e no9 pass to the consi3e%ation of

the a4ountallo9e3 to the plainti b& the t%ial ;u35e as theepense incu%%e3 fo%

4e3ical se%/ice. n thisconnection ,octo% Montes testi6e3 that he 9as 6%stcalle3 tosee the plainti upon Septe4be% !) *#)9hen he foun3 hi4 sue%in5 f%o4

t%au4aticneu%osis. Th%ee 4onths late% he 9as calle3 upon tot%eat the sa4e patient

fo% an acute cata%%halcon3ition) in/ol/in5 3istu%bance in the pul4ona%&%e5ion. The

t%eat4ent fo% this 4ala3& 9assuccessful afte% t9o 4onths) but at the en3 of

si4onths the sa4e t%ouble %ecu%%e3 an3 %e=ui%e3fu%the% t%eat4ent. n Octobe% of

the &ea% *


6/7

Montes 9as calle3 in consultation9ith ,octo% Gue%%e%o to 4a?e an ea4ination of

theplainti. ,octo% Montes sa&s that his cha%5esalto5ethe% fo% se%/ices %en3e%e3 to

the plainti a4ount to P"#+) of 9hich the su4 of P'++ ha3 beenpai3 b& the plainti

upon bills %en3e%e3 f%o4 ti4e toti4e. This ph&sician spea?s in the 4ost

5ene%alte%4s 9ith %espect to the ti4es an3 etent of these%/ices %en3e%e3 an3 it is

b& no 4eans clea% thatthose se%/ices 9hich 9e%e %en3e%e3 4an& 4onths)o% &ea%)afte% the acci3ent ha3 in fact an& necessa%&o% le5iti4ate %elation to the in;u%ies

%ecei/e3 b& theplainti. n /ie9 of the /a5ueness an3 unce%taint& of the testi4on&

%elatin5 to ,octo% Montes7 se%/ices)9e a%e of the opinion that the su4 of P'++) o%

thea4ount actuall& pai3 to hi4 b& the plainti)%ep%esents the etent of the

plainti7s obli5ation9ith %espect to t%eat4ent fo% sai3 in;u%ies.ith %e5a%3 to the

obli5ation suppose3l& incu%%e3 b&the plainti to th%ee othe% ph&sicians) 9e a%e of

theopinion that the& a%e not a p%ope% sub;ect of %eco/e%& in this action an3 this fo%

4o%e than one%eason. n the 6%st place) it 3oes not appea% thatsai3 ph&sicians ha/e

in fact 4a3e cha%5es fo% thosese%/ices 9ith the intention of i4posin5 obli5ationson

the plainti to pa& fo% the4. On the cont%a%& it9oul3 see4 that sai3 se%/ices 9e%e

5%atuitousl&%en3e%e3 out of cou%tes& to the plainti as a4e4be% of the 4e3ical

p%ofession. The su55estions4a3e on the stan3 b& these ph&sicians to the eect that

thei% se%/ices 9e%e 9o%th the a4ounts state3b& the4 a%e not suHcient to p%o/e3

that theplainti ha3 incu%%e3 the obli5ation to pa& thosea4ounts. n the secon3

place) 9e a%e con/ince3that in e4plo&in5 so 4an& ph&sicians the plainti 4ust

ha/e ha3 in /ie9 of the successful p%o4otionof the issue of this la9suit %athe% than

the

bona 63e

pu%pose of eectin5 the cu%e of his in;u%ies. n o%3e%to constitute a p%ope% ele4ent

of %eco/e%& in anaction of this cha%acte%) the 4e3ical se%/ice fo%9hich

%ei4bu%se4ent is clai4e3 shoul3 not onl& besuch as to ha/e c%eate3 a le5al

obli5ation upon theplainti but such as 9as %easonabl& necessa%& in/ie9 of his

actual con3ition. t can not be pe%4itte3that a liti5ant shoul3 %etain an unusual

an3unnecessa%& nu4be% of p%ofessional epe%ts 9ith a/ie9 to the successful

p%o4otion of a la9suit an3epect to %eco/e% a5ainst his a3/e%sa%& the

enti%eepense thus incu%%e3. 0is clai4 fo% 4e3icalse%/ices 4ust be li4ite3 to such

epen3itu%es as9e%e %easonabl& suite3 to the case. The secon3 e%%o% assi5ne3 in

the b%ief of the3efen3ant co4pan& p%esents a =uestion of p%actice9hich) thou5h not

/ital to the solution of this case) isof suHcient 5ene%al i4po%tance to 4e%it notice.

tappea%s that fou% of the ph&sicians ea4ine3 as9itnesses fo% the plainti ha34a3e 9%ittenstate4ents at /a%ious 3ates ce%tif&in5 the %esults of thei% %especti/e

ea4inations into the con3ition of the plainti. hen these 9itnesses 9e%e

ea4ine3in cou%t the i3enti6e3 thei% %especti/e si5natu%es tothese ce%ti6cates an3

the t%ial ;u35e) o/e% the3efen3ant7s ob;ection) a34itte3 the 3ocu4ents asp%i4a%&

e/i3ence in the case. This 9as un3oubte3l&e%%oneous. A 3ocu4ent of this cha%acte%

is notp%i4a%& e/i3ence in an& sense) since it isfun3a4entall& of a hea%sa& natu%e


7/7

an3 the onl&le5iti4ate use to 9hich one of these ce%ti6catescoul3 be put) as

e/i3ence fo% the plainti) 9as toallo9 the ph&sician 9ho issue3 it to %efe% the%eto

to%ef%esh his 4e4o%& upon 3etails 9hich he 4i5htha/e fo%5otten. n

9an5i>e% /s. Ne94an

D(" N. 2.Supp.) +F 9hich 9as also an action to %eco/e%3a4a5es fo% pe%sonal

in;u%&) it appea%e3 that aph&sician) 9ho ha3 been sent b& one of the pa%tiesto

ea4ine the plainti) ha3 4a3e at the ti4e a9%itten 4e4o%an3u4 of the %esults of

theea4ination an3 it 9as p%opose3 to int%o3uce this3ocu4ent in e/i3ence at the

t%ial. t 9as eclu3e3b& the t%ial ;u35e) an3 it 9as hel3 upon appeal thatthis 9as

p%ope%. Sai3 the cou%t: The%e 9as nofailu%e o% ehaustion of the 4e4o%&) an3

noi4peach4ent of the 4e4o%an3u4 on c%oss-ea4ination an3 the 3ocu4ent 9as

clea%l&inco4petent as e/i3ence in chief.t %esults f%o4 the fo%e5oin5 that the

;u354entappeale3 f%o4 4ust be 4o3i6e3 b& %e3ucin5 thea4ount of the %eco/e%& to

ele/en hun3%e3 pesosD)++) 9ith le5al inte%est f%o4 No/e4be% () *