G.R. No. 3124 - City Of Manila vs. Enrique Rodriguez
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 3124 January 3, 1907
THE CITY OF MANILA,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ,defendant-appellant.
Enrique N. Barretto for appellant.
Modesto Reyes for appellee.
WILLARD,J.:
The steamshipPluto, belonging to the plaintiff, while lying at its dock in the Pasig River on the 5th day of January, 1904, was run into bylorchaNo. 1, belonging, as the plaintiff alleged, to the defendant, and was damaged, as the plaintiff also alleged, to the amount of 5,292 pesos. Judgment was rendered in the court below against the defendant for that sum,. for which judgment he appealed.
In this court he makes the point that there is no evidencce of negligence on the part of the persons in charge of thelorcha. In answer to this claim, the apppellee refers to the testimony of Golden and Collins, and claims that this testimony is sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the person in thelorcha. The testimony of Golden who was the master of the launchSt. Paulon that day, so far as it relates to this point, is as follows:
Q. Will you please inform the court what occurred while you were towing quartermasterlorchaNo. 1, as you have testified? —
A. I towed quartermasterlorchaNo. 1, from the quartersmaster dock to the arsenal dock, and just crossing from the dock, and I had to let go back of thelorcha. I was going slow at the time. I was about 400 feet, or over away from the dock.
Q. What happened? —
A. I cast off thelorchaand went to port, then turned around and was watching thelorcha, which was going slow, and that the tide was bringing them in all the time.
Q. What did thelorchado? —
A. I could see thelorchasteering straight toward the stern of thePluto, but I did not see her strike.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. After you had cast off thelorcha, what did you do next? —
A. I went to port of the casco of lumber and went on up the river and turned round, and while turning round I saw thelorchagoing straight for the stern of thePlutovery slow, but I did not see her strike.
Collins was the engineer on thePlutoon that day. He testified:
A. I had been working in the engine room, at the time thelorchastruck us, and Captain O'Brien came to the engine room and called me on deck, and said; "Look at this railing about the stern all broken by thislorcha, Our men were standing by with fenders, but could not do anything after the damage was done, so the captain sent a man to the launch to find out the captain's name, and also thelorcha. That is all that I can say about the matter.
Q. What did you do when Captain O'Brien came and called you?
A. I came on deck, and the men were shoving alorchaoff close by-shoving it right away from us.
Both parties agree that this is all the evidence in the case which tends to show any negligence on the part of thelorcha, and in our opinion it is entirely insufficient for that purpose. As will be noticed, there is nothing to show what the persons on thelorchadid or what they did not do; how many people there were on thelorcha; how near thelorchawas to the Plujto when the tow rope was cast off by theSt. Paul; whether or not the people on thelorchawere notified by the captain of theSt. Paulthat he was going to cast them off; what time, if any, they had to prepare for such an event, and whether or not they knew that they had been cast adrift. On these points, as is seen, there was absolutely no evidence at all.
It was suggested in the court below that thePlutobeing tied of the wharf and having been run into by thelorcha, there is a presumption that the accident was caused by the negligence of thelorcha. Whatever may be said of this presumption in other cases, it can have no application in this case since it affirmatively appears that thelorchawas being towed by theSt. Paul, and whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the people on thelorchaor by the tow so unexpectedly does not appear.
The case was continued from January to July to enable the defendant to present the testimony of O'Brien, captain of thePluto, and who evidently was an eyewitness of the accident. He was not produced at that time as a witness, but in this place Collins, the engineer, testified. Why he was not produced does not appear, but the reason may perhaps may be inferred from a statement made by him on the day following the accident, when reporting it, which statement was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. In that report he said:
The accident occurred while the S.S.Plutowas moored at its garbage dock, and everything was done, as far as putting out rattan fenders, to offset the force of the blow, as we could see thelorchahad a big rate of speed owing to the bad judgment on the part of the native patron of the launchSt. Paulby letting go his towline.
Q. In your judgment could the collision have been avoided if proper methods had been taken by the patron of thelorcha? —
A. Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. How could the collision have been avoided? —
A. If they went to the port they could have gone right by thePluto, and if they had gone to starboard they could have gone right to the dock; there was nothing lying there; the dock was empty.
Q. Through whose fault, in your judgment, was the collision caused? —
A. The fault of the patron of thelorcha.
It is very plain that this evidence can have no effect upon the result. The witness did not testify to the facts upon which he based his conclusion, even if with such testimony his opinion would have been competent.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the defendant is acquitted of the complaint, with the costs of the first instance against the plaintiff. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court. After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the record remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ.,concur.