G.R. No. 29462 , March 7, 1929
IGNACIO DEL PRADO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., defendant-appellant.

Ponente: STREET, J.

FACTS

Ignacio del Prado attempted to board a moving streetcar operated by the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) on R. Hidalgo Street. The car had just left its designated stop. As Del Prado approached from the left, raised his hand, and grabbed the front handpost while placing his foot on the platform, the motorman slightly accelerated the car. This caused Del Prado to lose his grip, fall, and have his right foot crushed by the moving car, necessitating amputation. Del Prado sued Meralco for damages based on negligence. The trial court awarded him P10,000. Meralco appealed, arguing it exercised due diligence in training its employees and that Del Prado’s own negligence caused the accident.

ISSUE

1. Whether Meralco is liable for the injuries suffered by Ignacio del Prado.
2. If liable, what is the nature of that liability (contractual or tortuous) and what is the proper amount of damages?

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED Meralco’s liability but MODIFIED the damages awarded, reducing them to P2,500.

1. On Liability: The Court found Meralco liable. While a streetcar company is not obligated to stop for passengers outside designated points, it has a duty not to act in a way that increases the peril of someone attempting to board. The motorman’s act of accelerating the car while Del Prado was in the precarious act of boarding constituted a breach of this duty. The Court did not believe the motorman’s claim that he was unaware of Del Prado’s attempt, given the proximity of the handpost to the motorman’s position.

2. Nature of Liability: The liability is contractual in nature (culpa contractual) arising from the carrier-passenger relationship, which begins when a person starts boarding the car. This is distinct from tort liability (culpa aquiliana). The significance is that under contractual liability:
The defense of having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family (which Meralco pleaded) is not available (Arts. 1101, 1103, 1104, Civil Code).
The court has discretion to mitigate damages based on the circumstances (Art. 1103, Civil Code).

3. Contributory Negligence and Damages: The Court acknowledged that Del Prado was contributorily negligent by attempting to board a moving car. However, applying a principle analogous to the “last clear chance” doctrine, Meralco’s negligence (accelerating) was the proximate cause as it could have avoided the consequences of Del Prado’s negligence. Nevertheless, Del Prado’s contributory negligence was considered a mitigating circumstance warranting a reduction of the damages. Considering precedents and the fact that Del Prado could use an artificial limb with his earning capacity reduced by an estimated 30%, the Supreme Court reduced the award from P10,000 to P2,500.

DISSENTING OPINION (Johnson, J., concurred in by Johns, J.):
Justice Johnson dissented, arguing that the motorman operated the car with care and ordinary prudence, and that Del Prado’s injury was solely due to his own imprudence in boarding a moving vehicle. He found no justification for holding Meralco liable or for apportioning damages.