G.R. No. 20047 ; August 25, 1923
MARCIANO RALLOS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Marciano Rallos, sued the Philippine Railway Co. for damages resulting from a fire on June 29, 1921, which destroyed his two houses and furniture. The fire allegedly started when sparks emitted from the defendant’s locomotive (engine No. 33) ignited the nipa roof of a house owned by Tomas Diores, which was located extremely close to the railroad track on land owned by the defendant. The flames then spread across a 20-foot street to the plaintiff’s houses. The plaintiff alleged negligence in the defendant’s operation and equipment of the engine, including the failure to equip it with a spark-arrester, the use of wood fuel, and allowing combustible materials and houses to exist near its tracks. The defendant denied negligence and asserted contributory negligence by the plaintiff for building his houses 19 and 30 meters from the track. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P3,000.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant, Philippine Railway Co., is liable for damages due to its negligence, which was the proximate cause of the fire that destroyed the plaintiff’s property.

RULING

Yes, the defendant is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The evidence conclusively established that the fire originated from sparks emitted by the defendant’s locomotive, which lacked a spark-arrester and was using wood fuel, and that these sparks ignited the nipa roof of a house situated dangerously close to the tracks on the defendant’s own land. The defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the fire. The Court rejected the defendant’s defense based on a Royal Decree of 1877, as the decree provided for condemnation proceedings to address pre-existing property rights and did not absolve the railroad from liability for its own negligence. The defendant’s violation of the decree’s spirit by allowing houses to remain on its right-of-way and collecting rent from them contributed to the hazard. The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, as his houses were built on his own land before the railroad existed and were not within the defendant’s right-of-way. The assessed damages were reasonable.