FACTS:

On March 22, 1980, Julio Famoso, an employee of Ma-ao Sugar Central, was riding a cargo train when it suddenly derailed. Famoso and his companion jumped off to avoid injury, but the train fell on its side and pinned Famoso's legs, resulting in his death. The claims for death and other benefits filed by Famoso's widow were denied by the petitioner. Famoso's widow filed a lawsuit in the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, where Judge Marietta Hobilla-Alinio ruled in her favor but deducted 25% of the damages for Famoso's contributory negligence and the pension she would receive from the SSS for the next five years. The widow appealed, claiming the deductions were illegal. The petitioner also appealed, arguing that it was not negligent and should not be held liable. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's rulings but disallowed the deductions. The petitioner argued that the court erred in finding it guilty of negligence and in disallowing the deductions made by the trial court. The investigation showed that the derailment was caused by protruding rails that were not connected and fixed in place by fish plates. The maintenance of the rails, including preventing derailments, was the petitioner's responsibility, which it failed to fulfill. The petitioner argued that no one had been hurt before due to such derailments and that its employees were required to report any defects in the railway. However, the Court found that the petitioner should have taken more prudent steps to prevent accidents instead of waiting until a life was lost because of its negligence. The Court also found that the absence of fish plates, which should have been bolted to the rails, was proof of the petitioner's negligence. The petitioner also claimed that it exercised due diligence in selecting and supervising its employees, but the Court disagreed and found it lax in maintaining the rails. The Court also rejected the argument that Famoso was guilty of contributory negligence for not being at his assigned station when the train derailed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner is negligent and liable for the death of the employee.

2. Whether the deductions made by the trial court are legal.

RULING:

1. The petitioner is negligent and liable for the death of the employee. The maintenance of the rails, including the prevention of derailments, is the responsibility of the petitioner. The investigation of the accident revealed that the derailment was caused by loose fish plates, which are responsible for keeping the rails aligned. The petitioner failed to discharge its responsibility in maintaining the rails. The Court also did not accept the argument that no one had been hurt before because of such derailments, as the petitioner should have taken more prudent steps to prevent accidents. The argument that the brakemen and conductors were required to report defects in the railways is also not acceptable, as the petitioner should have acted on those reports and not merely received and filed them. The absence of the fish plates alone is proof of the petitioner's negligence.

2. The deductions made by the trial court are not legal. The Court of Appeals disallowed the deductions and ordered the petitioner to pay the full amounts awarded by the trial court.

PRINCIPLES:

• The maintenance and prevention of accidents are the responsibility of the employer. (Negligence)

• Res ipsa loquitur - The thing which causes injury is under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such that it would not happen if proper care was exercised. It is reasonable evidence of negligence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant.