G.R. No. L-5191; August 17, 1911
CHARLES G. EADES vs. THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY

FACTS

Charles G. Eades filed an action to recover damages amounting to P17,965.01 for severe and permanent personal injuries he sustained. The injuries allegedly resulted from the negligence of The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company (defendant). The defendant had a contract with the City of Manila to keep the streets in repair for a specified period. The lower court, after examining the pleadings and evidence, ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint and ordering Eades to pay costs. Eades appealed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the action is one ex delicto (based on tort) or ex contractu (based on contract).
2. Whether the defendant was negligent and liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
3. The proper measure of damages for the plaintiff’s injuries.

RULING

1. Nature of the Action: The Supreme Court held that the action is ex delicto (tort-based) and not ex contractu. The defendant’s liability arises from its negligencea breach of duty owed to the publicrather than from a breach of its contract with the City of Manila.
2. Negligence and Liability: The Court found, by a preponderance of evidence, that the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries directly due to the defendant’s negligence as alleged in the complaint. The lower court’s judgment was reversed on this point.
3. Damages: Adhering to the rule of comparative negligence established in Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company (7 Phil. Rep., 359), the Court awarded Eades P5,000 as reasonable damages, with 6% interest from April 6, 1908, plus costs. The Court emphasized that this award was specific to the case and did not set a general rule for measuring damages in personal injury cases.

Separate Opinion:
Justice Moreland dissented, arguing that the evidence fully sustained the lower court’s judgment. He contended that the defendant’s negligence was unproven and that the action, being ex delicto, was inconsistent with the claim that liability arose from the defendant’s contractual obligation to the City of Manila.