ANTONINO ESPIRITU, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Antonino Espiritu and Felix Tuason brought separate actions for
damages against the Manila Electric Co. for personal injuries sustained by them
in a head-on collision between two street cars belonging to the defendant
company and operating on the company’s Manila-Pasig line. The actions are based
on identical facts and were tried together. The trial court rendered judgment in
favor of the defendant corporation and absolved it from the complaints without
costs. From this judgment both of the plaintiffs appealed.

The collision was due to negligence, and the plaintiffs were
passengers on one of the cars at the time. They were, therefore, clearly
entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by them (De Guia vs. Manila
Electric Railroad & Light Co., 40 Phil., 706), and the only question for our
consideration is whether certain agreements made between the parties in the
evening of the day the accident occurred are binding on the plaintiffs. Briefly
stated, the facts relating to this question are as follows:

The accident occurred near Fort McKinley. Antonino Espiritu,
seeing that the collision was inevitable, jumped out of the car in which he was
riding and fractured one of the bones in his left leg. Felix Tuason was thrown
down on the floor of the car and broke his left collar bone. Both of them were
taken to Fort McKinley for emergency treatment and shortly afterwards
transferred to St. Paul’s Hospital in Manila, where they were placed under
treatment at the expense of the defendant. In the evening of the same day, the
plaintiffs were visited by Feliciano P. Santiago, a representative of the
defendant corporation and after some conversation, Espiritu agreed to accept the
sum of P300 in full compensation for his injuries and signed the following
document:

“MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

“GENERAL AND SPECIAL RELEASE

“I hereby acknowledge the receipt from the Manila Electric
Railroad and Light Company, of three hundred pesos, Philippine currency, in full
settlement of all claims and demands and rights of actions which I may have
against the said Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, its officers or
employees, and specifically in settlement of all damages and in injuries
sustained by me either in person or property, on the 25th day of December, 1926,
in Manila, Philippine Islands, at or near Pasig Line at McKinley.

“And in consideration of said sum I hereby release and
discharge the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company its officers or
employees, from all obligations now existing or that may hereafter arise in my
favor by reason of the said damages and injuries by me sustained on the 25th day
of December, 1926.

“I have read and understood the foregoing release, and signed
the same this 25th day of December, 1926.

“(Sgd.) A. ESPIRITU

“ANTONINO ESPIRITU

“Witness:
“(Sgd.) FEL. SANTIAGO”

Felix Tuason accepted the sum of P140 and signed a document of
the same purport as that signed by Espiritu, but, as he was not well versed in
the English language, the document was written in Tagalog. The money was paid
over to the plaintiifs the same evening.

Counsel argues that the appellants, through fraud and deceit,
were induced to enter into the agreements without being fully cognizant of the
consequences, and that therefore said agreements are of no force and effect. The
agreements rest on the same principles as any ordinary contract, and if the
plaintiffs’ assertions that such agreements were obtained by fraud and deceit
and that they, the plaintiffs, were in such a condition that they were not fully
conscious of what they were doing, the agreements would, of course, be invalid.
But the weight of the evidence is contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, and we
can find no indication of fraud. Neither can we say that the agreements were so
unconscionable as to affect their validity. While the amounts agreed upon may
seem inadequate, it nevertheless appears that they are in excess of what the
plaintiffs, if uninjured, could have earned in the length of time required for
the healing of their injuries in the present case.

We therefore hold that the plaintiffs are bound by their
respective agreements, and the appealed judgment is affirmed, with the costs
against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns,
Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.