Yamada vs.

Manila Railroad & Bachrach Garage

33 Phil. 11 (source)
Facts: The plaintiffs with three companions hired an automobile from the defendant
Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. for a trip to Cavite Viejo. The automobile was
hired by the driver of the taxicab company. On the return trip to Manila, while
crossing the tracks of the railroad company, the automobile was struck by the train
and the plaintiffs were injured. Plaintiffs sued both the railroad and the taxicab
companies. The lower court absolved the railroad company and condemned the
taxicab company to pay damages to the plaintiff.
The question was whether the driver of the car was negligent and in the affirmative
whether the employer owner of the car was responsible in damages to the plaintiffs.
Held: The driver was negligent when he did not reduce his speed upon nearing the
railroad crossing to determine whether there was an oncoming train.
The defendant also contended that even if the driver was negligent, still it was
not liable since it had performed its duty to the plaintiffs when it furnished a suitable
and proper car and selected a driver who had been with the company for five or six
years and who had not had an accident or misadventure before. The Supreme Court,
however, held that

“… it was the duty of the company not only to furnish a suitable and proper care and select a
competent operator, but also to supervise and, where necessary, instruct him properly.”
Defendant taxicab company was held liable to the plaintiffs.

Martinez v. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil. 79

G.R. No. L-5691 December 27, 1910
S.D. MARTINEZ and his wife, CARMEN ONG DE MARTINEZA, plaintiffs-
appellees
vs.
WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK, defendant-appellant.
MORELAND, J.:
FACTS:

 On September 11, 1908, Carmen Ong de Martinez, was riding in a carromata on

Calle Real, Ermita, Manila, Philippines, when a delivery wagon belonging to
William Van Buskirk, came along the street in the opposite direction at a great
speed, and run over to carromata severely wounding Carmen Ong with a serious
cut upon her head.
 Van Buskirk presented evidence to the effect that the cochero, who was driving
his delivery wagon at the time the accident occurred, was a good servant and
was considered a safe and reliable cochero;
 That upon the delivery of some forage, the defendant’s cochero tied the driving
lines of the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon and then went back
inside the wagon to unload the forage.
 While unloading the forage, another vehicle drove by, the driver of which
cracked a whip and made some other noise, which frightened the horses attached
to the delivery wagon and they ran away. The driver was thrown out from the
wagon and was unable to stop the horses resulting to a collision with the
carromata.
Upon these facts the court below found the defendant guilty of negligence and
gave judgment against him for P442.50, with interest thereon at the rate of 6
per cent per annum from the 17th day October, 1908, and for the costs of the
action. The case is before us on an appeal from that judgment.

ISSUE

Whether or Not the defendant be liable for the negligence of his cochero?
HOLDING

 No. The Court of appeals ruled in favor of the defendant. This is because the
occurrence that transpired therein was an accident resulted from an ordinary acts
of life. The prima facie case was already destroyed from the start when the
defendant presented his evidence to the court by employing all the diligence of
his cochero proving that the latter was not a negligent. Hence, it proves that the
defendant is not liable for any accusations.
RULINGS

 It was held that the cochero of the defendant was not negligent in leaving the
horses in the manner described by the evidence in this case. The act of
defendant’s driver in leaving the horses in the manner proved was not
unreasonable or imprudent. Acts that the performance of which has not proved
destructive or injurious and which have, therefore, been acquiesced in by
society for so long a time that they have ripened into custom, can not be held
to be of themselves unreasonable or imprudent. In fact, the very reason why they
have been permitted by society is that they are beneficial rather than prejudicial.
 It is the universal practice to leave the horses in the manner in which they were
left at the time of the accident. Those conditions showing of themselves that the
defendant’s cochero was not negligent in the management of the horse.
Tañada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) 146
SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)

FACTS:

Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that
laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of
mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential
decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of
implementations and administrative orders.

The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that
petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable.

HELD:

Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the
law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general
public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens.
Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia
legis nominem excusat. It would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the
transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette…. The
word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if
the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance
and validity.

The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of

due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and
specifically informed of its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application
which have not been published have no force and effect.