G.R. No. L-8745, December 11, 1915
ANTONIO MESTRES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD and LIGHT CO., defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
On the night of December 24, 1911, an automobile owned by plaintiff Antonio Mestres but driven by Luis R. Yangco, to whom it had been loaned, was proceeding along Arquiza Street in Manila. Upon reaching the intersection with Nebraska Street, the automobile turned left into Nebraska Street, which contained streetcar tracks operated by the defendant company. While the automobile was on or crossing the tracks, it collided with a streetcar traveling south on Nebraska Street, causing significant damage to the automobile.

The plaintiff alleged that the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant’s motorman, specifically for (a) failing to exercise care and diligence, (b) failing to sound the gong, and (c) operating the streetcar at an excessive speed. The plaintiff contended that when the automobile entered Nebraska Street, the streetcar was approximately 371 feet away at Mercado Street, providing ample time for the motorman to stop or avoid the collision.

The defendant denied negligence and asserted that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the automobile driver, who entered Nebraska Street at an excessive speed without proper caution, leaving insufficient time for the motorman to prevent the collision.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant company, through its motorman, was negligent and thus liable for the damages to the plaintiff’s automobile.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant’s negligence and that the driver of the automobile was contributorily negligent.

The Court found that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim that the motorman was negligent. Testimony indicated that the streetcar was operating at a moderate speed, the gong was being rung as required by ordinance, and the motorman was exercising ordinary care.

Crucially, the Court emphasized the doctrine of contributory negligence. It held that the driver of the automobile, Yangco, was negligent. The evidence showed that upon entering Nebraska Street, he had a clear view of the approaching streetcar from a distance of about 371 feet. Despite having ample time and opportunity to clear the tracks, he remained on them until the collision occurred. Under the circumstances, it was his duty to yield the right of way and avoid the collision. His failure to do so was a determining factor in the accident, barring recovery under the principle established in Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. (7 Phil. Rep., 359).

The Court also discussed the relevant city ordinances, noting that they essentially codified the general duty to exercise reasonable care. The evidence did not establish a violation of these ordinances by the motorman.

Therefore, the plaintiff could not recover damages, and the dismissal of the action was proper.