The Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. CA
The Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. CA
The Ilocos Norte Electric Company v. CA
While it may be true that, as petitioner argues (vide The foregoing shows that petitioner had the
petitioner's Memorandum, p. 135, Rollo), Ernesto de la opportunity to verify the declarations of Ernesto de la
Cruz was not an actual witness to the instant when the Cruz which, if truly adverse to private respondent,
deceased sank into the waist-deep water, he acted would have helped its case. However, due to reasons
upon the call of help of Aida Bulong and Linda Alonzo known only to petitioner, the opportunity was not
Estavillo with the knowledge of, and immediately after, taken.
the sinking of the deceased. In fact the startling event
had not yet ceased when Ernesto de la Cruz entered Coming now to the second issue, We tip the scales in
the scene considering that the victim remained the private respondents' favor. The respondent CA
submerged. Under such a circumstance, it is acted correctly in disposing the argument that
undeniable that a state of mind characterized by petitioner be exonerated from liability since typhoons
nervous excitement had been triggered in Ernesto de and floods are fortuitous events. While it is true that
la Cruz's being as anybody under the same typhoons and floods are considered Acts of God for
contingency could have experienced. As such, We which no person may be held responsible, it was not
cannot honestly exclude his shouts that the water was said eventuality which directly caused the victim's
grounded from the res gestae just because he did not death. It was through the intervention of petitioner's
actually see the sinking of the deceased nor hear her negligence that death took place. We subscribe to the
scream "Ay." conclusions of the respondent CA when it found:
Neither can We dismiss the said declaration as a mere On the issue whether or not the
opinion of Ernesto de la Cruz. While We concede to the defendant incurred liability for the
submission that the statement must be one of facts electrocution and consequent death
rather than opinion, We cannot agree to the of the late Isabel Lao Juan,
proposition that the one made by him was a mere defendant called to the witness-
opinion. On the contrary, his shout was a translation of stand its electrical engineer, chief
an actuality as perceived by him through his sense of lineman, and lineman to show
touch. exercise of extraordinary diligence
and to negate the charge of
Finally, We do not agree that the taking of Ernesto de negligence. The witnesses testified
la Cruz' testimony was suppressed by the private in a general way about their duties
respondents, thus, is presumed to be adverse to them and the measures which
pursuant to Section 5(e), Rule 131. For the application defendant usuallyadopts to prevent
of said Rule as against a party to a case, it is necessary hazards to life and limb. From these
that the evidence alleged to be suppressed is available testimonies, the lower court found
only to said party (People vs. Tulale, L-7233, 18 May "that the electric lines and other
1955, 97 Phil. 953). The presumption does not operate equipment of defendant corporation
if the evidence in question is equally available to both were properly maintained by a well-
parties (StaplesHowe Printing Co. vs. Bldg. and Loan trained team of lineman, technicians
Assn., 36 Phil. 421). It is clear from the records that and engineers working around the
petitioner could have called Ernesto de la Cruz to the clock to insure that these
witness stand. This, precisely, was Linda Alonzo equipments were in excellent
Estavillo's suggestion to petitioner's counsel when she condition at all times." (P. 40, Record
testified on cross examination: on Appeal) The finding of the lower
court, however, was based on what
Q. And that Erning de la the defendant's employees were
Cruz, how far did he reach supposed to do, not on what they
from the gate of the house? actually did or failed to do on the
date in question, and not on the
A. Well, you can ask that occasion of
matter from him sir
the emergency situation brought ceased. At that time, he was at the
about by the typhoon. main building of the Divine Word
College of Laoag where he had taken
The lower court made a mistake in his family for refuge. (pp. 510-
assuming that defendant's 511, Ibid.)
employees worked around the clock
during the occurrence of the In times of calamities such as the one
typhoon on the night of June 28 and which occurred in Laoag City on the
until the early morning of June 29, night of June 28 until the early hours
1967, Engr. Antonio Juan of the of June 29, 1967, extraordinary
National Power Corporation diligence requires a supplier
affirmed that when he first set out on of electricity to be in constant vigil to
an inspection trip between 6:00 and prevent or avoid any probable
6:30 A.M. on June 29, 1967, he saw incident that might imperil life or
grounded and disconnected electric limb. The evidence does not show
lines of the defendant but he saw that defendant did that. On the
no INELCO lineman. The INELCO contrary, evidence discloses that
Office at the Life theatre on Rizal there were no men (linemen or
Street was still closed. (pp. 63-64, otherwise) policing the area, nor
TSN, Oct. 24, 1972) Even the even manning its office. (CA
witnesses of defendant contradict Decision, pp. 24-25, Rollo)
the finding of the lower court.
Conrado Asis, defendant's electrical Indeed, under the circumstances of the case, petitioner
engineer, testified that he conducted was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to
a general inspection of the franchise the general public"... considering that electricity is an
area of the INELCO only on June 30, agency, subtle and deadly, the measure of care
1967, the day following the typhoon. required of electric companies must be commensurate
The reason he gave for the delay was with or proportionate to the danger. The duty of
that all their vehicles were exercising this high degree of diligence and care
submerged. (p. 337, TSN, July 20, extends to every place where persons have a right to
1973) According to Asis, he arrived be" (Astudillo vs. Manila Electric, 55 Phil. 427). The
at his office at 8:00 A.M. on June negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not
30 and after briefing his men on now absolve itself from liability by arguing that the
what to do they started out. (p. victim's death was solely due to a fortuitous event.
338, lbid) One or two days after the "When an act of God combines or concurs with the
typhoon, the INELCO people heard negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the
"rumors that someone was defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted
electrocuted" so he sent one of his but for his own negligent conduct or omission" (38 Am.
men to the place but his man Jur., p. 649).
reported back that there was no
damaged wire. (p. 385, Id.) Loreto Likewise, the maxim "volenti non fit injuria" relied upon
Abijero, chief lineman of defendant, by petitioner finds no application in the case at bar. It
corroborated Engr. Juan. He testified is imperative to note the surrounding circumstances
that at about 8:00 A.M. on June 29, which impelled the deceased to leave the comforts of
1967 Engr. Juan came to the INELCO a roof and brave the subsiding typhoon. As testified by
plant and asked the INELCO people Linda Alonzo Estavillo (see TSN, p. 5, 26 Sept. 1972) and
to inspect their lines. He went with Aida Bulong (see TSN, p. 43, 26 Sept. 1972), the
Engr. Juan and their inspection deceased, accompanied by the former two, were on
lasted from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon. their way to the latter's grocery store "to see to it that
(pp. 460, 465, TSN, Jan. 28, 1975) the goods were not flooded." As such, shall We punish
Fabico Abijero lineman of her for exercising her right to protect her property from
defendant, testified that at about the floods by imputing upon her the unfavorable
6:00 on June 29, 1967 the typhoon presumption that she assumed the risk of personal
injury? Definitely not. For it has been held that a person the National Power Corporation set out in the early
is excused from the force of the rule, that when he morning of June 29, 1967 on an inspection tour, he saw
voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide grounded and disconnected lines hanging from posts
by the consequences, if an emergency is found to exist to the ground but did not see any INELCO lineman
or if the life or property of another is in peril (65A C.S.C. either in the streets or at the INELCO office (vide, CA
Negligence(174(5), p. 301), or when he seeks to rescue Decision, supra). The foregoing shows that petitioner's
his endangered property (Harper and James, "The Law duty to exercise extraordinary diligence under the
of Torts." Little, Brown and Co., 1956, v. 2, p. 1167). circumstance was not observed, confirming the
Clearly, an emergency was at hand as the deceased's negligence of petitioner. To aggravate matters, the CA
property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with an found:
impending loss. Furthermore, the deceased, at the time
the fatal incident occurred, was at a place where she . . .even before June 28 the people in
had a right to be without regard to petitioner's consent Laoag were already alerted about
as she was on her way to protect her merchandise. the impending typhoon, through
Hence, private respondents, as heirs, may not be barred radio announcements. Even the fire
from recovering damages as a result of the death department of the city announced
caused by petitioner's negligence (ibid., p. 1165, 1166). the coming of the big flood. (pp.
532-534, TSN, March 13, 1975) At
But petitioner assails the CA for having abused its the INELCO irregularities in the flow
discretion in completely reversing the trial court's of electric current were noted
findings of fact, pointing to the testimonies of three of because "amperes of the switch volts
its employees its electrical engineer, collector- were moving". And yet, despite
inspector, lineman, and president-manager to the these danger signals, INELCO had to
effect that it had exercised the degree of diligence wait for Engr. Juan to request that
required of it in keeping its electric lines free from defendant's switch be cut off but the
defects that may imperil life and limb. Likewise, the said harm was done. Asked why the
employees of petitioner categorically disowned the delay, Loreto Abijero answered that
fatal wires as they appear in two photographs taken on he "was not the machine tender of
the afternoon of June 29, 1967 (Exhs. "D" and "E"), the electric plant to switch off the
suggesting that said wires were just hooked to the current." (pp. 467-468, Ibid.) How
electric post (petitioner's Memorandum, p. 170, Rollo). very characteristic of gross
However, as the CA properly held, "(t)he finding of the inefficiency! (CA Decision, p. 26,
lower court ... was based on what the defendant's Rollo)
employees were supposed to do, not on what they
actually did or failed to do on the date in question, and From the preceding, We find that the CA did not abuse
not on the occasion of the emergency its discretion in reversing the trial court's findings but
situation brought about by the typhoon" (CA Decision, tediously considered the factual circumstances at hand
p. 25, Rollo). And as found by the CA, which We have pursuant to its power to review questions of fact raised
already reiterated above, petitioner was in fact from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, formerly
negligent. In a like manner, petitioner's denial of the Court of First Instance (see sec. 9, BP 129).
ownership of the several wires cannot stand the logical
conclusion reached by the CA when it held that "(t)he In considering the liability of petitioner, the respondent
nature of the wounds as described by the witnesses CA awarded the following in private respondent's favor:
who saw them can lead to no other conclusion than P30,229.45 in actual damages (i.e., P12,000 for the
that they were 'burns', and there was nothing else in victim's death and P18,229.45 for funeral expenses);
the street where the victim was wading thru which P50,000 in compensatory damages, computed in
could cause a burn except the dangling live wire of accordance with the formula set in the Villa-Rey Transit
defendant company" (supra). case (31 SCRA 511) with the base of P15,000 as average
annual income of the deceased; P10,000 in exemplary
"When a storm occurs that is liable to prostrate the damages; P3,000 attorney's fees; and costs of suit.
wires, due care requires prompt efforts to discover and Except for the award of P12,000 as compensation for
repair broken lines" (Cooley on Torts, 4th ed., v. 3, p. the victim's death, We affirm the respondent CA's
474). The fact is that when Engineer Antonio Juan of award for damages and attorney's fees. Pusuant to
recent jurisprudence (People vs. Mananquil, 132 SCRA
196; People vs. Traya, 147 SCRA 381), We increase the
said award of P12,000 to P30,000, thus, increasing the
total actual damages to P48,229.45.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes