Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11474 March 29, 1917
PASIG STEAMER AND LIGHTER COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
VICENTE MADRIGAL, defendant,
and THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and MANILA NAVIGATION COMPANY, defendants-appellants.
Gilbert, Cohn and Fisher for plaintiff and appellant.
Buenaventura Reyes for defendant Madrigal.
William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for defendants and appellants.
MORELAND, J.:
Without going into the facts of this case in detail the court is fully satisfied that the Manila Railroad Company was negligent in the handling and care of the lighter in question, and that it must, therefore, respond to some one for the damages which resulted from its negligence.
The lighter was rented by the plaintiff to the defendant Madrigal and by him subject to the Manila Railroad Company and lost while in its possession. The trial court dismissed the action as to Vicente Madrigal but held the Manila Railroad Company liable. The plaintiff appealed from that portion of the judgment dismissing the complaint as to Madrigal and the Railroad Company appealed from the judgment entered against it in favor of the plaintiff.
We are of the opinion that the judgment dismissing the complaint as to Madrigal must be reversed. He is liable to the plaintiff upon his general obligation to return the property in as good condition as when received, natural wear and tear excepted; unless, of course, it was destroyed by an act of God, something not claimed in this case.
As between the plaintiff and the Railroad Company, the former is entitled to a judgment against the latter on the principle of representation, and such liability is expressly declared by article 1550 of the Civil Code.
The judgment appealed from in so far as it dismissed the action as to Vicente Madrigal is reversed and judgment is hereby entered against him for the sum of P4,000 with interest from the 7th day of October, 1914. No costs. The judgment rendered is understood to be against Madrigal and the Railroad Company jointly and severally.
We are not authorized under the pleadings to make any pronouncement as between Madrigal and the Railroad Company.
The judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Manila Railroad Company is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
