G.R. No. L-5691, S. D. MARTINEZ and his wife, CARMEN ONG DE MARTINEZ, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK, defendant-appellant., December 27, 1910

FACTS: On September 11, 1908, Carmen Ong de Martinez was riding in a carromata on Calle Real. A delivery wagon belonging to William Van Buskirk, pulled by a pair of horses, approached from the opposite direction at great speed. Martinez’s driver pulled over and stopped to allow the wagon to pass. However, Van Buskirk’s wagon and horses ran into the carromata, overturning it and severely wounding Martinez, causing a serious cut on her head, and damaging the carromata and harness.

The defendant presented evidence that his cochero (driver) was a good, safe, and reliable servant. At the time of the accident, the cochero was delivering forage. He tied the horses’ driving lines to the front of the wagon and went inside to unload the forage. While he was unloading, another vehicle passed by, its driver cracked a whip and made noises, frightening Van Buskirk’s horses. The horses bolted, throwing the cochero from the wagon, rendering him unable to stop them. The runaway horses then collided with Martinez’s carromata. The defendant himself was not present during the incident.

The trial court found the defendant guilty of negligence and awarded P442.50 in damages to the plaintiffs. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Was the defendant’s cochero negligent in leaving the horses unattended while unloading the delivery wagon, thereby making the defendant liable for damages under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code?

RULING: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, finding that the cochero was not negligent.

The Court reasoned that while the law on negligence may differ, the rules for determining a negligent act are generally the same. Based on the undisputed evidence:
1. The horses were gentle and tractable.
2. The cochero was experienced and capable, having driven the horses for several years and routinely leaving them unattended in the same manner without prior incidents.
3. Leaving horses in such a manner while unloading merchandise was a common custom among cocheros, and this practice was sanctioned by their employers.

The Court held that the cochero’s act of leaving the horses in the described manner was not unreasonable or imprudent. Acts that have not proven destructive or injurious and have been widely accepted by society as custom cannot be held to be inherently unreasonable or imprudent. While accidents can occur from ordinary acts, such outcomes are not their natural or customary results.

Regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court clarified that it merely creates a prima facie case of negligence in the absence of proof of circumstances. In this case, the plaintiffs themselves presented the conditions under which the runaway occurred. These conditions, specifically the custom, the horses’ disposition, and the driver’s experience, affirmatively showed that the cochero was not negligent, thus destroying any prima facie case of negligence that might have initially arisen.

Therefore, since the cochero was not negligent, the defendant, as his employer, could not be held liable.