Gabeto v. Araneta G.R. No. L-15674

Gabeto v. Araneta 

[G.R. No. L-15674, October 17, 1921]

STREET, J.

Facts:

• Basilio Ilano and Proceso Gayetano took a carromata with a view to going to a cockpit. When the driver of the carromata had turned his horse and started in the direction indicated, the defendant, Agaton Araneta, stepped out into the street, stopped the horse, and at the same time protested to the driver that he himself had called this carromata first. 
• The driver, Julio Pagnaya, replied that he had not heard or seen the call of Araneta. Pagnaya pulled on the reins of the bridle to free the horse from the control of Agaton Araneta in order that the vehicle might pass on. 
• However, due to the looseness of the bridle on the horse's head or to the rottenness of the material of which it was made, the bit came out of the horse's mouth.
• Pagnaya, the driver, and Ilano, one of the passengers, had alighted from the carromata but Gayetano unfortunately retained his seat. 
• When Pagnaya was trying to fix the bridle, the horse, being free from the control of the bit, became disturbed and moved forward, in doing he was able to pull one of the wheels of the carromata up on the sidewalk; thus, strucking a police telephone box which was fixed to a post on the sidewalk, upon which the box came down with a crash and frightened the horse to such an extent that the horse set out at full speed up the street.
• After the runaway horse had proceeded up the street to a point in front of the Mission Hospital, Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig, and in so doing received injuries from which he soon died.
• Consequently, the widow of Gayetano, Consolacion, filed an action for damages against Araneta. 

Issue: Whether Araneta should be held liable for the death of Gayetano.

Held: No. 

• The Court is of the opinion that the mere fact that the defendant interfered with the carromata by stopping the horse would not make him liable for the death of Proceso Gayetano.
• The stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. 
• Moreover, by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse, the driver was the person primarily responsible for the control of the animal, and the defendant cannot be charged with liability for the accident resulting from the action of the horse thereafter.
• The evidence indicates that the bridle was old, and the leather of which it was made was probably so weak as to be easily broken.
• Julio Pagnaya testifies to one fact which, if it were fully accredited, would possibly put a different complexion on the case; for he says that when the horse was pulled over to the curb, the defendant gesticulated with one of his arms and incidentally brought his hand down on the horse's nose. This, according to Pagnaya, is what made the horse run away. There is no other witness who testifies to this; and it is noteworthy that Basilio Ilano does not mention it. A decided preponderance of the evidence in our opinion is against it.