Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co.
part to have not waited the train to stop before he
38 Phil 768, October 1918, J. Fisher.
Facts:
1. Jose Cangco is a clerk working in Manila Railroad Co.
2. As an employee, he was given a pass that entitles him
to ride the company’s train free of charge.
3. On the night of Jan. 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the
train on his way home. When it reached the San
Mateo station (where he lives) he stood up and
positioned himself near the exit. A person gets of
before him. When he was about to come down, he
was suppose to step on a certain platform. However,
that day, there were watermelons piled in that
platform and he stepped on them. (The watermelons
are there because it was harvest season. It was ready
for shipment to the market.)
4. Since the place was lighted dimly, he couldn’t
properly see if the watermelons were there or not.
Also, when he got of, the train was still moving.
5. As a consequence of his fall, he was drawn to the
platform and was crushed by a moving car.
6. He was taken to a hospital where is arms were
amputated. Afterwards, he was taken to another
hospital where his shoulders were also amputated. All
in all, the expenses had a total of Php 790. 25.
7. He filed a case against MRR in CFI Manila to recover
damages. However, CFI ruled in favor of MRR because
there was CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE on the part
of Cangco. CFI ruled that while MRR was negligent by
placing the watermelons on the platform and the
train failing to bring him safely, Cangco failed to
exercise due caution in alighting from the train.
Issue:
 Is Cangco barred from recovering damages against
MRR because of his own CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE?
Ruling:
 NO, he is not barred from recovering damages. (SC
reversed the decision of the CFI)
 SC said that the PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY of MRR
should be examined separately from the
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE of Cangco.
 On the one hand, there is the contract of carriage on
the part of MRR to bring Cangco safely to his
destination. There is the presumption of responsibility
on the part of MRR to make sure that in order to bring
Cangco and other passengers safely to their
destination, MRR should have exercised the proper
discretion in selecting and directing its employees and
workers. MRR is deemed negligent if is proven that
they failed in their discretion in selecting and directing
its employees.
o To prove that MRR exercised DILIGENCE in
this area would exonerate MRR from
liability.
 On the other hand, Cangco alighted from the train
when the train was still moving. It is negligence on his
alighted. In that way, he should’ve seen the pile of
watermelons piled in the platform.
 However, in the case at bar, there were circumstances
to prove that MRR did not exercise diligence. FIRST,
“the place, as we have already stated, was dark, or
dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon
the part of the defendant in the performance of a
duty owing by it to the plaintif; for if it were by any
possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks
in the path of alighting passengers, the placing of
them adequately so that their presence would be
revealed.”
 SECOND, “it may be noted that the place was
perfectly familiar to the plaintif as it was his daily
custom to get on and of the train at this station. There
could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with
regard either to the length of the step which he was
required to take or the character of the platform
where he was alighting.”
 As a conclusion, the conduct of the plaintif in
undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly
under way was not characterized by imprudence and
that therefore he was not guilty of contributory
negligence.
 With this, MRR should pay the damages. They are
ordered to pay Php 3, 290. 25 to Cangco.
DISSENTING, Malcolm and Johnson:
 With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of
full accord, namely, "It may be admitted that had
plaintif waited until the train had come to a full stop
before alighting, the particular injury sufered by him
could not have occurred." With the general rule
relative to a passenger's contributory negligence, we
are likewise in full accord, namely, "An attempt to
alight from a moving train is negligence per se."
Adding these two points together, should be absolved
from the complaint, and judgment affirmed.