Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1719            January 23, 1907

M. H., RAKES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

A. D. Gibbs for appellant. F. G. Waite, & Thimas Kepner for appellee.

TRACEY, J.:

This is an action for damages. The plaintiff, one of a gang of eight negro laborers in the employment of the defendant, was at work transporting iron rails from a barge in the harbor to the company's yard near the malecon in Manila. Plaintiff claims that but one hand car was used in this work. The defendant has proved that there were two immediately following one another, upon which were piled lengthwise seven rails, each weighing 560 pounds, so that the ends of the rails lay upon two crosspieces or sills secured to the cars, but without side pieces or guards to prevent them from slipping off. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, the men were either in the rear of the car or at its sides. According to that defendant, some of them were also in front, hauling by a rope. At a certain spot at or near the water's edge the track sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at about the knee.

This first point for the plaintiff to establish was that the accident happened through the negligence of the defendant. The detailed description by the defendant's witnesses of the construction and quality of the track proves that if was up to the general stranded of tramways of that character, the foundation consisting on land of blocks or crosspieces of wood, by 8 inches thick and from 8 to 10 feet long laid, on the surface of the ground, upon which at a right angle rested stringers of the same thickness, but from 24 to 30 feet in length. On the across the stringers the parallel with the blocks were the ties to which the tracks were fastened. After the road reached the water's edge, the blocks or crosspieces were replaced with pilling, capped by timbers extending from one side to the other. The tracks were each about 2 feet wide and the two inside rails of the parallel tracks about 18 inches apart. It was admitted that there were no side pieces or guards on the car; that where no ends of the rails of the track met each other and also where the stringers joined, there were no fish plates. the defendant has not effectually overcome the plaintiff's proof that the joints between the rails were immediately above the joints between the underlying stringers.

The cause of the sagging of the tracks and the breaking of the tie, which was the immediate occasion of the accident, is not clear in the evidence, but is found by the trial court and is admitted in the briefs and in the argument to have been the dislodging of the crosspiece or piling under the stringer by the water of the bay raised by a recent typhoon. The superintendent of the company attributed it to the giving way of the block laid in the sand. No effort was made to repair the injury at the time of the occurrence. According to plaintiffs witnesses, a depression of the track, varying from one half inch to one inch and a half, was therafter apparent to the eye, and a fellow workman of the plaintiff swears that the day before the accident he called the attention of McKenna, the foreman, to it and asked by simply straightening out the crosspiece, resetting the block under the stringer and renewing the tie, but otherwise leaving the very same timbers as before. It has not proven that the company inspected the track after the typhoon or had any proper system of inspection.

In order to charge the defendant with negligence, it was necessary to show a breach of duty on its part in failing either to properly secure the load on iron to vehicles transporting it, or to skillfully build the tramway or to maintain it in proper condition, or to vigilantly inspect and repair the roadway as soon as the depression in it became visible. It is upon the failure of the defendant to repair the weakened track, after notice of its condition, that the judge below based his judgment.

This case presents many important matters for our decision, and first among them is the standard of duty which we shall establish in our jurisprudence on the part of employees toward employees.

The lack or the harshness of legal rules on this subject has led many countries to enact designed to put these relations on a fair basis in the form of compensation or liability laws or the institution of insurance. In the absence of special legislation we find no difficulty in so applying the general principles of our law as to work out a just result.

Article 1092 of the Civil Code provides:

Civil obligations, arising from crimes or misdemeanors, shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.

And article 568 of the latter code provides:

He who shall execute through reckless negligence an act that if done with malice would constitute a grave crime, shall be punished.

And article 590 provides that the following shall be punished:

4. Those who by simple imprudence or negligence, without committing any infraction of regulations, shall cause an injury which, had malice intervened, would have constituted a crime or misdemeanor.

And finally by articles 19 and 20, the liability of owners and employers for the faults of their servants and representatives is declared to be civil and subsidiary in its character.

It is contented by the defendant, as its first defense to the action, that the necessary conclusion from these collated laws is that the remedy for injuries through negligence lies only in a criminal action in which the official criminally responsible must be made primarily liable and his employer held only subsidiarily to him. According to this theory the plaintiff should have procured the arrest of the representative of the company accountable for not repairing the tract, and on his prosecution a suitable fine should have been imposed, payable primarily by him and secondarily by his employer.

This reasoning misconceived the plan of the Spanish codes upon this subject. Article 1093 of the Civil Code makes obligations arising from faults or negligence not punished by the law, subject to the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title XVI. Section 1902 of that chapter reads:

A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.

SEC. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.

The father, and on his death or incapacity, the mother, is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with them.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for the damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or in the performance of their duties.

xxx           xxx           xxx

The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damages.

As an answer to the argument urged in this particular action it may be sufficient to point out that nowhere in our general statutes is the employer penalized for failure to provide or maintain safe appliances for his workmen. His obligation therefore is one "not punished by the law " and falls under civil rather than criminal jurisprudence. But the answer may be a broader one. We should be reluctant, under any conditions, to adopt a forced construction of these scientific codes, such as is proposed by the defendant, that would rob some of these articles of effect, would shut out litigants their will from the civil courts, would make the assertion of their rights dependent upon the selection for prosecution of the proper criminal offender, and render recovery doubtful by reason of the strict rules of proof prevailing in criminal actions. Even if these articles had always stood alone, such a construction would be unnecessary, but clear light is thrown upon their meaning by the provisions of the Law of Criminal Procedure of Spain (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal), which, though n ever in actual force in these Islands, was formerly given a suppletory or explanatory effect. Under article 111 of this law, both classes of action, civil and criminal, might be prosecuted jointly or separately, but while the penal action was pending the civil was suspended. According to article 112, the penal action once started, the civil remedy should be sought therewith, unless it had been waived by the party injured or been expressly reserved by him for civil proceedings for the future. If the civil action alone was prosecuted, arising out of a crime that could be enforced by only on private complaint, the penal action thereunder should be extinguished. These provisions are in harmony with those of articles 23 and 133 of our Penal Code on the same subject.

An examination of this topic might be carried much further, but the citations of these articles suffices to show that the civil liability was not intended to be merged in the criminal nor even to be suspended thereby, except as expressly provided by law. Where an individual is civilly liable for a negligent act or omission, it is not required that the inured party should seek out a third person criminally liable whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right.

Under article 20 of the Penal Code the responsibility of an employer may be regarded as subsidiary in respect of criminal actions against his employees only while they are process of prosecution, or in so far as they determinate the existence of the criminal act from which liability arises, and his obligation under the civil law and its enforcement in the civil courts is not barred thereby unless by election of the injured person. Inasmuch as no criminal in question, the provisions of the Penal Code can not affect this action. This construction renders it unnecessary to finally determine here whether this subsidiary civil liability in penal actions survived the laws that fully regulated it or has been abrogated by the American civil and criminal procedure now in force in the Philippines.

The difficulty in construing the articles of the code above cited in this case appears from the briefs before us to have arisen from the interpretation of the words of article 1093, "fault or negligence not punished by law," as applied to the comprehensive definition of offenses in articles 568 and 590 of the Penal Code. It has been shown that the liability of an employer arising out of his relation to his employee who is the offender is not to be regarded as derived from negligence punished by the law, within the meaning of articles 1092 and 1093. More than this, however, it can not be said to fall within the class of acts unpunished by the law, the consequences of which are regulated by articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. The acts to which these articles are applicable are understood to be those and growing out of preexisting duties of the parties to one another. But were relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi contract, then breaches of those duties are subject to articles 1101, 1103, and 1104, of the same code. A typical application of the distinction may be found in the consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery supplied by the employer. His liability to his employee would arise out of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of the contract for passage. while that to that injured bystander would originate in the negligent act itself. This distinction is thus clearly set forth by Manresa in his commentary on article 1093.

We are with reference to such obligations, that culpa, or negligence, may be understood in two difference senses; either as culpa, substantive and independent, which on account of its origin arises in an obligation between two persons not formerly bound by any

other obligation; or as an incident in the performance of an obligation; or as already existed, which can not be presumed to exist without the other, and which increases the liability arising from the already exiting obligation.

Of these two species of culpa the first one mentioned, existing by itself, may be also considered as a real source of an independent obligation, and, as chapter 2, title 16 of this book of the code is devoted to it, it is logical to presume that the reference contained in article 1093 is limited thereto and that it does not extend to those provisions relating to the other species of culpa (negligence), the nature of which we will discuss later. (Vol. 8, p. 29.)

And in his commentary on articles 1102 and 1104 he says that these two species of negligence may be somewhat inexactly described as contractual and extra-contractual, the letter being the culpa aquiliana of the Roman law and not entailing so strict an obligation as the former. This terminology is unreservedly accepted by Sanchez-Roman (Derecho Civil, fourth section, Chapter XI, Article II, No. 12), and the principle stated is supported be decisions of the supreme court of Spain, among them those of November 20, 1896 (80 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 151), and June 27, 1894 (75 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 182). The contract is one for hire and not one of mandate. (March 10, 1897, 81 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 107.)

Spanish Jurisprudencia prior to the adoption of the Working Men's Accident Law of January 30, 1900, throws uncertain light on the relation between master and workman. Moved by the quick industrial development of their people, the courts of France early applied to the subject the principles common to the law of both countries, which are lucidly discussed by the leading French commentators.

The original French theory, resting the responsibility of owners of industrial enterprises upon articles 1382, 1383, and 1384 of the Code Napoleon, corresponding in scope to articles 1902 and 1903 of the Spanish Code, soon yielded to the principle that the true basis is the contractual obligation of the employer and employee. (See 18 Dalloz, 196, Title Travail, 331.)

Later the hardships resulting from special exemptions inserted in contracts for employment led to the discovery of a third basis for liability in an article of he French Code making the possessor of any object answerable for damage done by it while in his charge. Our law having no counterpart of this article, applicable to every kind of object, we need consider neither the theory growing out of it nor that of "professional risk" more recently imposed by express legislation, but rather adopting the interpretation of our Civil Code above given, find a rule for this case in the contractual obligation. This contractual obligation, implied from the relation and perhaps so inherent in its nature to be invariable by the parties, binds the employer to provide safe appliances for the use of the employee, thus closely corresponding to English and American Law. On these principles it was the duty of the defendant to build and to maintain its track in reasonably sound condition, so as to protect its workingmen from unnecessary danger. It is plain that in one respect or the other it failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could not have occurred; consequently the negligence of the defendant is established.

Another contention of the defense is that the injury resulted to the plaintiff as a risk incident to his employment and, as such, one assumed by him. It is evident that this can not be the case if the occurrence was due to the failure to repair the track or to duly inspect, it for the employee is not presumed to have stipulated that the employer might neglect his legal duty. Nor may it be excused upon the ground that the negligence leading to the accident was that of a fellow-servant of the injured man. It is not apparent to us that the intervention of a third person can relieve the defendant from the performance of its duty nor impose upon the plaintiff the consequences of an act or omission not his own. Sua cuique culpa nocet. This doctrine, known as "the fellow-servant, rule," we are not disposed to introduce into our jurisprudence. Adopted in England by Lord Abinger in the case of Prescott vs. Fowler (3 Meeson & Welsby, 1) in 1837, it has since been effectually abrogated by "the Employers' Liability Acts" and the "Compensation Law." The American States which applied it appear to be gradually getting rid of it; for instance, the New York State legislature of 1906 did away with it in respect to railroad companies, and had in hand a scheme for its total abolition. It has never found place in the civil law of continental Europe. (Dalloz, vol. 39, 1858, Title Responsibilite, 630, and vol. 15, 1895, same title, 804. Also more recent instances in Fuzier-Herman, Title Responsibilite Civile, 710.)

The French Cour de Cassation clearly laid down the contrary principle in its judgment of June 28, 1841, in the case of Reygasse, and has since adhered to it.

The most controverted question in the case is that of the negligence of the plaintiff, contributing to the accident, to what extent it existed in fact and what legal effect is to be given it. In two particulars is he charged with carelessness:

First. That having noticed the depression in the track he continued his work; and

Second. That he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards, either before or behind it.

As to the first point, the depression in the track night indicate either a serious or a rival difficulty. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the plaintiff did or could see the displaced timber underneath the sleeper. The claim that he must have done so is a conclusion drawn from what is assumed to have been a probable condition of things not before us, rather than a fair inference from the testimony. While the method of construction may have been known to the men who had helped build the road, it was otherwise with the plaintiff who had worked at this job less than two days. A man may easily walk along a railway without perceiving a displacement of the underlying timbers. The foreman testified that he knew the state of the track on the day of the accident and that it was then in good condition, and one Danridge, a witness for the defendant, working on the same job, swore that he never noticed the depression in the track and never saw any bad place in it. The sagging of the track this plaintiff did perceive, but that was reported in his hearing to the foreman who neither promised nor refused to repair it. His lack of caution in continuing at his work after noticing the slight depression of the rail was not of so gross a nature as to constitute negligence, barring his recovery under the severe American rule. On this point we accept the conclusion of the trial judge who found as facts that "the plaintiff did not know the cause of the one rail being lower than then other" and "it does not appear in this case that the plaintiff knew before the accident occurred that the stringers and rails joined in the same place."

Were we not disposed to agree with these findings they would, nevertheless, be binding upon us, because not "plainly and manifestly against the weight of evidence," as those words of section 497, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure were interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the De la Rama case (201 U. S., 303).

In respect of the second charge of negligence against the plaintiff, the judgment below is not so specific. While the judge remarks that the evidence does not justify the finding that the car was pulled by means of a rope attached to the front end or to the rails upon it, and further that the circumstances in evidence make it clear that the persons necessary to operate the car could not walk upon the plank between the rails and that, therefore, it was necessary for the employees moving it to get hold upon it as best they could, there is no specific finding upon the instruction given by the defendant to its employees to walk only upon the planks, nor upon the necessity of the plaintiff putting himself upon the ties at the side in order to get hold upon the car. Therefore the findings of the judge below leave the conduct of the plaintiff in walking along the side of the loaded car, upon the open ties, over the depressed track, free to our inquiry.

While the plaintiff and his witnesses swear that not only were they not forbidden to proceed in this way, but were expressly directed by the foreman to do so, both the officers of the company and three of the workmen testify that there was a general prohibition frequently made known to all the gang against walking by the side of the car, and the foreman swears that he repeated the prohibition before the starting of this particular load. On this contradiction of proof we think that the preponderance is in favor of the defendant's contention to the extent of the general order being made known to the workmen. If so, the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not as its primary cause. This conclusion presents sharply the question, What effect is to be given such an act of contributory negligence? Does it defeat a recovery, according to the American rule, or is it to be taken only in reduction of damages?

While a few of the American States have adopted to a greater or less extent the doctrine of comparative negligence, allowing a recovery by a plaintiff whose own act contributed to his injury, provided his negligence was slight as compared with that of the defendant, and some others have accepted the theory of proportional damages, reducing the award to a plaintiff in proportion to his responsibility for the accident, yet the overwhelming weight of adjudication establishes the principle in American jurisprudence that any negligence, however slight, on the part of the person injured which is one of the causes proximately contributing to his injury, bars his recovery. (English and American Encyclopedia of law, Titles "Comparative Negligence" and Contributory Negligence.")

In Grant Trunk Railway Company vs. Ives (144 U. S., 408, at page 429) the Supreme Court of the United States thus authoritatively states the present rule of law:

Although the defendant's' negligence may have been the primary cause of the injury complained of, yet an action for such injury can not be maintained if the proximate and immediate cause of the injury can be traced to the want of ordinary care and caution in the person injured; subject to this qualification, which has grown up in recent years (having been first enunciated in Davies vs. Mann, 10 M. & W., 546) that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the injured party's negligence.

There are may cases in the supreme court of Spain in which the defendant was exonerated, but when analyzed they prove to have been decided either upon the point that he was not negligent or that the negligence of the plaintiff was the immediate cause of the casualty or that the accident was due to casus fortuitus. Of the first class in the decision of January 26, 1887 (38 Jurisprudencia Criminal, No. 70), in which a railway employee, standing on a car, was thrown therefrom and killed by the shock following the backing up of the engine. It was held that the management of the train and engine being in conformity with proper rules of the company, showed no fault on its part.

Of the second class are the decision of the 15th of January, the 19th of February, and the 7th of March, 1902, stated in Alcubilla's Index of that year; and of the third class the decision of the 4th of June, 1888 (64 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 1), in which the breaking down of plaintiff's dam by the logs of the defendant impelled against it by the Tajo River, was held due to a freshet as a fortuitous cause.

The decision of the 7th of March, 1902, on which stress has been laid, rested on two bases, one, that the defendant was not negligent, because expressly relieved by royal order from the common obligation imposed by the police law of maintaining a guard at the road crossing; the other, because the act of the deceased in driving over level ground with unobstructed view in front of a train running at speed, with the engine whistle blowing was the determining cause of the accident. It is plain that the train was doing nothing but what it had a right to do and that the only fault lay with the injured man. His negligence was not contributory, it was sole, and was of such an efficient nature that without it no catastrophe could have happened.

On the other hand, there are many cases reported in which it seems plain that the plaintiff sustaining damages was not free from contributory negligence; for instance, the decision of the 14th of December, 1894 (76 Jurisprudencia Civil, No. 134), in which the owner of a building was held liable for not furnishing protection to workmen engaged in hanging out flags, when the latter must have perceived beforehand the danger attending the work.

None of those cases define the effect to be given the negligence of a plaintiff which contributed to his injury as one of its causes, though not the principal one, and we are left to seek the theory of the civil law in the practice of other countries.

In France in the case of Marquant, August 20, 1879, the cour de cassation held that the carelessness of the victim did not civilly relieve the person without whose fault the accident could not have happened, but that the contributory negligence of the injured man had the effect only of reducing the damages. The same principle was applied in the case of Recullet, November 10, 1888. and that of Laugier of the 11th of November, 1896. (Fuzier-Herman, Title Responsibilite Cirile, 411, 412.) Of like tenor are citations in Dalloz (vol. 18, 1806, Title Trail, 363, 364, and vol. 15, 1895, Title Responsibilite, 193, 198).

In the Canadian Province of Quebee, which has retained for the most part the French Civil Law, now embodied in a code following the Code Napoleon, a practice in accord with that of France is laid down in many cases collected in the annotations to article 1053 of the code edited by Beauchamps, 1904. One of these is Luttrell vs. Trottier, reported in La Revue de Jurisprudence, volume 6, page 90, in which the court of Kings bench, otherwise known as the court of appeals, the highest authority in the Dominion of Canada on points of French law, held that contributory negligence did not exonerate the defendants whose fault had been the immediate cause of the accident, but entitled him to a reduction of damages. Other similar cases in the provincial courts have been overruled by appellate tribunals made up of common law judges drawn from other provinces, who have preferred to impose uniformally throughout the Dominion the English theory of contributory negligence. Such decisions throw no light upon the doctrines of the civil law. Elsewhere we find this practice embodied in legislation; for instance, section 2 of article 2398 of the Code of Portugal reads as follows:

If in the case of damage there was fault or negligence on the part of the person injured or in the part of some one else, the indemnification shall be reduced in the first case, and in the second case it shall be appropriated in proportion to such fault or negligence as provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 2372.

And in article 1304 of the Austrian Code provides that the victim who is partly changeable with the accident shall stand his damages in proportion to his fault, but when that proportion is incapable of ascertainment, he shall share the liability equally with the person principally responsible. The principle of proportional damages appears to be also adopted in article 51 of the Swiss Code. Even in the United States in admirality jurisdictions, whose principles are derived from the civil law, common fault in cases of collision have been disposed of not on the ground of contradictor negligence, but on that of equal loss, the fault of the one part being offset against that of the other. (Ralli vs. Troop, 157 U. S. 386; 97.)

The damage of both being added together and the sum equally divided, a decree is entered in favor of the vessel sustaining the greater loss against the other for the excess of her damages over one-half of the aggregate sum. (The Manitoba, 122 U. S., 97)

Exceptional practice appears to prevail in maritime law in other jurisdictions. The Spanish Code of Commerce, article 827, makes each vessel for its own damage when both are the fault; this provision restricted to a single class of the maritime accidents, falls for short of a recognition of the principle of contributory negligence as understood in American Law, with which, indeed, it has little in common. This is a plain from other articles of the same code; for instance, article 829, referring to articles 826, 827, and 828, which provides: "In the cases above mentioned the civil action of the owner against the person liable for the damage is reserved, as well as the criminal liability which may appear."

The rule of the common law, a hard and fast one, not adjustable with respects of the faults of the parties, appears to have grown out the original method of trial by jury, which rendered difficult a nice balancing of responsibilities and which demanded an inflexible standard as a safeguard against too ready symphaty for the injured. It was assumed that an exact measure of several concurring faults was unattainable.

The reason why, in cases of mutual concurring negligence, neither party can maintain an action against the other, is, not the wrong of the one is set off against the wrong of the other; it that the law can not measure how much of the damage suffered is attributable to the plaintiff's own fault. If he were allowed to recover, it might be that he would obtain from the other party compensation for hiss own misconduct. (Heil vs. Glanding, 42 Penn. St. Rep., 493, 499.)

The parties being mutually in fault, there can be no appointment of damages. The law has no scales to determine in such cases whose wrongdoing weighed most in the compound that occasioned the mischief. (Railroad vs. Norton, 24 Penn. St. 565, 469.)

Experience with jury trials in negligence cases has brought American courts to review to relax the vigor of the rule by freely exercising the power of setting aside verdicts deemed excessive, through the device of granting new trials, unless reduced damages are stipulated for, amounting to a partial revision of damages by the courts. It appears to us that the control by the court of the subject matter may be secured on a moral logical basis and its judgment adjusted with greater nicety to the merits of the litigants through the practice of offsetting their respective responsibilities. In the civil law system the desirable end is not deemed beyond the capacity of its tribunals.

Whatever may prove to be the doctrine finally adopted in Spain or in other countries under the stress and counter stress of novel schemers of legislation, we find the theory of damages laid down in the judgment the most consistent with the history and the principals of our law in these Islands and with its logical development.

Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party shall be considered immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple. Distinction must be between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it, but contributing under review was the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it. this produced the event giving occasion for damages — that is, the shinking of the track and the sliding of the iron rails. To this event, the act of the plaintiff in walking by the side of the car did not contribute, although it was an element of the damage which came to himself. Had the crosspiece been out of place wholly or partly thorough his act of omission of duty, the last would have been one of the determining causes of the event or accident, for which he would have been responsible. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he can not recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.

Accepting, though with some hesitation, the judgment of the trial court, fixing the damage incurred by the plaintiff at 5,000 pesos, the equivalent of 2,500 dollars, United States money, we deduct therefrom 2,500 pesos, the amount fairly attributable to his negligence, and direct judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the resulting sum of 2,500 pesos, with cost of both instances, and ten days hereafter let the case be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J. Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

WILLARD, J., dissenting:

The knowledge which the plaintiff had in regard to the condition of the track is indicated by his own evidence. He testified, among other things, as follows:

Q.       Now, describe the best you can the character of the track that ran from the place where you loaded the irons from the barge up to the point where you unloaded them on the ground.

A.       — Well, it was pretty bad character.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And you were familiar with the track before that its construction?

A.       Familiar with what?

Q.       Well, you have described it here to the court.

A.       Oh, yes; I knew the condition of the track.

Q.       You knew its conditions as you have described it here at the time you were working around there?

A.       Yes, sir.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And while operating it from the side it was necessary for you to step from board to board on the cross-ties which extended out over the stringers?

A.       Yes, sir.

Q.       And these were very of irregular shape, were they not?

A.       They were in pretty bad condition.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And it was not safe to walk along on the outside of these crosspieces?

A.       It was safe if the car stayed on the track. We didn't try to hold the load on. We tried to hold the car back, keep it from going too fast, because we knew the track was in bad condition just here, and going down too fast we could be liable to run off most any time.

Q.       You knew the track was in bad condition when you got hold?

A.       Sure, it was in bad condition.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       And the accident took place at that point where you believed it to be so dangerous?

A.       Yes, sir.

Q.       But you knew it was dangerous?

A.       Why certainly, anybody could see it; but a workingman had to work in those days or get arrested for a vag here in Manila.

The court below, while it found that the plaintiff knew in a general way of the bad condition of the track, found that he was not informed of the exact cause of the accident, namely, the washing away of the large crosspiece laid upon the ground or placed upon the posts as the foundation upon which the stripers rested. This finding of fact to my mind is plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Ellis, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that on the morning of the accident he called the attention of McKenna, the foreman, to the defective condition of the track at his precise point where the accident happened. His testimony in part is as follows:

A.       I called Mr. McKenna. I showed him the track and told him I didn't think it was safe working, and that if he didn't fix it he was liable to have an accident; I told him I thought if he put fish plates on it would it. He said, you keep on fishing around here for fish plates and you will be fishing for another job the first thing you know." He says, "You see to much."

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       Who else was present at the time you had this conversation with Mr. McKenna?

A.       Well, at that conversation as far as I can remember, we were all walking down the track and I know that McCoy and Mr. Blakes was along at the time. I remember them two, but we were all walking down the track in a bunch, but I disremember them.

xxx           xxx           xxx

Q.       Was that the exact language that you used, that you wanted some fish plates put on?

A.       No, sir: I told him to look at that track. I says get some fish plates. I says if there was any fish plates we would fix that.

Q.       What did the fish plates have to do with that?

A.       It would have strengthened that joint.

Q.       Why didn't you put the 8 by 8 which was washed crossways in place?

A. That would have been taken the raising of the track and digging out along this upright piece and then putting it up again.

The plaintiff himself testified that he was present with Ellis at the time this conversation was had with McKenna. It thus appears that on the morning in question the plaintiff and McKenna were standing directly over the place where the accident happened later in the day. The accident was caused, as the court below found, by the washing away or displacement of the large 8 by 8 piece of timber. This track was constructed as all other tracks are, all of it open work, with no floor over the ties, and of course see the ground and the entire construction of the road, including these large 8 by 8 pieces, the long stringers placed thereon, the ties placed on these stringers, and the rails placed on the ties. The plaintiff himself must have seen that the 8 by 8 piece of timber was out of place.

If the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses is to be believed, the displacement was more markedly apparent even than it would appear from the testimony of the defendant's witnesses. According to the plaintiff's witnesses, the water at high tide reached the place in question and these 8 by 8 pieces were therefore not laid upon the ground but were placed upon posts driven into the ground, the height of the posts at this particular place being, according to the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, from a foot to two feet and a half. As has been said, Ellis testified that the reason why they did not put the 8 by 8 back in its place was because that would have required the raising up of the track and digging out along this upright piece and then putting it up again.

It conclusively appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, before the accident happened, knew the exact condition of the track and was informed and knew of the defect which caused the accident. There was no promise on the part of McKenna to repair the track.

Under the circumstances the plaintiff was negligent in placing himself on the side of the car where he knew that he would be injured by the falling of the rails from the car when they reached this point in the track where the two stringers were without any support of their ends. He either should have refused to work at all or he should have placed himself behind the car, on the other side of it, or in front of it, drawing it with a rope. He was guilty of contributory negligence and is not entitled to recover.

It is, said however, that contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in a case like this is no defense under the law in force in these Islands. To this proposition I can not agree. The liability of the defendant is based in the majority opinion upon articles 1101 and 1103 of the Civil Code.

In order to impose such liability upon the defendant, it must appear that its negligence caused the accident. The reason why contradictory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a defense in this class of cases is that the negligence of the defendant did not alone cause the accident. If nothing but that negligence had existed, the accident would not have happened and, as I understand it, in every case in which contradictory negligence is a defense it is made so because the negligence of the plaintiff is the cause of the accident, to this extent, that if the plaintiff had not been negligent the accident would not have happened, although the defendant was also negligent. In other words, the negligence of the defendant is not alone sufficient to cause the accident. It requires also the negligence of the plaintiff.

There is, so far as I know, nothing in the Civil Code relating to contributory negligence. The rule of the Roman law was: "Quod quis ex culap sua damnum sentit, no intelligitur damnum sentire." (Digest, book, 50, tit. 17, rule 203.)

The partidas contain the following provisions:

The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he can not demand reparation therefor from another. (Law 25, tit. 5, partida 3.)

And they even said that when a man received an injury through his own acts, the grievance should be against himself and not against another. (Law 2, tit. 7, partida 2.)

In several cases in the supreme court of Spain the fact has been negligence that the plaintiff was himself guilty of negligence, as in the civil judgments of the 4th of June, 1888, and of the 20th of February, 1887, and in the criminal judgments of the 20th of February 1888, the 90th of March, 1876, and the 6th of October, 1882. These cases do not throw much light upon the subject. The judgment of the 7th of March, 1902 (93 Jurisprudencia Civil, 391), is, however, directly in point. In that case the supreme court of Spain said:

According to the doctrine expressed in article 1902 of the Civil Code, fault or negligence is a source of obligation when between such negligence and the injury thereby caused there exists the relation of cause and effect; but in the injury caused should not be the result of acts or omissions of a third party, the latter has no obligation to repair the same, even though such acts or omissions were imprudent

or unlawful, and much less when it is shown that the immediate cause of the injury was the negligence of the injured person party himself.

Found the reasons above stated, and the court below having found that the death of the deceased was due to his own imprudence, and not therefore due to the absence of a guard at the grade crossing where the accident occurred, it seems clear that court in acquitting the railroad company of the complaint filed by the widow did not violate the provisions of the aforesaid article of the Civil Code.

For the same reason, although the authority granted to the railroad company to open the grade crossing without a special guard was nullified by the subsequent promulgation of the railroad police law and the regulations for the execution of the same, the result would be identical, leaving one of the grounds upon which the judgment of acquittal is based, to wit, that the accident was caused by the imprudence of the injured party himself, unaffected.

It appears that the accident in this case took place at a grade crossing where, according to the claim of the plaintiff, it was the duty of the railroad company to maintain husband was injured by a train at this crossing, his negligence contributing to the injury according to the ruling of the court below. This judgment, then, amounts to a holding that a contributory negligence is a defense according to the law of Spain. (See also judgment of the 21st of October, 1903, vol. 96 p. 400, Jurisprudencia Civil.)

Although in the Civil Code there is no express provision upon the subject, in the Code of Commerce there is found a distinct declaration upon it in reference to damages caused by collission at sea. Article 827 of the Code of Commerce is as follows:

If both vessels may be blamed for the collission, each one shall for liable for his own damages, and both shall jointly responsible for the loss and damages suffered to their cargoes.

That article is an express recognition of the fact that in collision cases contributory negligence is a defense,

I do not think that this court is justified in view of the Roman law, of the provisions of the Partidas, of the judgment of March 7, 1902, of article 827 of the Code of Commerce, and in the absence of any declaration upon the subject in the Civil Code, in saying that it was the intention rule announced in the majority opinion, a rule dimetrically opposed to that put in force by the Code of Commerce.

The chief, is not the only, reason stated in the opinion for adopting the rule that contradictory negligence is not a defense seems to be that such is the holding of the later French decisions.

As to whether, if any liability existed in this case, it would be necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code, or primary, in accordance with the provision of the Civil Code, I express no opinion.

The judgment should, I think, be reversed and the defendant acquitted of the complaint.

Carson, J., concurs.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

 

G.R. No. 126389 July 10, 1998

SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE INC., petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, JUANITA DE JESUS VDA. DE DIMAANO, EMERITA DIMAANO, REMEDIOS DIMAANO, CONSOLACION DIMAANO and MILAGROS DIMAANO, respondents.

 

PURISIMA, J.:

Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision 1 promulgated on July 31, 1996, and Resolution 2 dated September 12, 1996 of the Court of Appeals 3 in CA-G.R. No. 41422, entitled "Juanita de Jesus vda. de

Dimaano, et al. vs. Southeastern College, Inc.", which reduced the moral damages awarded below from P1,000,000.00 to P200,000.00. 4 The Resolution under attack denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Private respondents are owners of a house at 326 College Road, Pasay City, while petitioner owns a four-storey school building along the same College Road. On October 11, 1989, at about 6:30 in the morning, a powerful typhoon "Saling" hit Metro Manila. Buffeted by very strong winds, the roof of petitioner's building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents' house. After the typhoon had passed, an ocular inspection of the destroyed building was conducted by a team of engineers headed by the city building official, Engr. Jesus L. Reyna. Pertinent aspects of the latter's Report 5 dated October 18, 1989 stated, as follows:

5. One of the factors that may have led to this calamitous event is the formation of the building in the area and the general direction of the wind. Situated in the peripheral lot is an almost U-shaped formation of 4-storey building. Thus, with the strong winds having a westerly direction, the general formation of the building becomes a big funnel-like structure, the one situated along College Road, receiving the heaviest impact of the strong winds. Hence, there are portions of the roofing, those located on both ends of the building, which remained intact after the storm.

6. Another factor and perhaps the most likely reason for the dislodging of the roofing structural trusses is the improper anchorage of the said trusses to the roof beams. The 1/2' diameter steel bars embedded on the concrete roof beams which serve as truss anchorage are not bolted nor nailed to the trusses. Still, there are other steel bars which were not even bent to the trusses, thus, those trusses are not anchored at all to the roof beams.

It then recommended that "to avoid any further loss and damage to lives, limbs and property of persons living in the vicinity," the fourth floor of subject school building be declared as a "structural hazard."

In their Complaint 6 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, for damages based on culpa aquiliana, private respondents alleged that the damage to their house rendered the same uninhabitable, forcing them to stay temporarily in others' houses. And so they sought to recover from petitioner P117,116.00, as actual damages, P1,000,000.00, as moral damages, P300,000.00, as exemplary damages and P100,000.00, for and as attorney's fees; plus costs.

In its Answer, petitioner averred that subject school building had withstood several devastating typhoons and other calamities in the past, without its roofing or any portion thereof giving way; that it has not been remiss in its responsibility to see to it that said school building, which houses school children, faculty members, and employees, is "in tip-top condition"; and furthermore, typhoon "Saling" was "an act of God and therefore beyond human control" such that petitioner cannot be answerable for the damages wrought thereby, absent any negligence on its part.

The trial court, giving credence to the ocular inspection report to the effect that subject school building had a "defective roofing structure," found that, while typhoon "Saling" was accompanied by strong winds, the damage to private respondents' houses "could have been avoided if the construction of the roof of [petitioner's] building was not faulty." The dispositive portion of the lower court's decision 7 reads, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court renders judgment (sic) in favor of the plaintiff (sic) and against the defendants, (sic) ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the former as follows:

a) P117,116.00, as actual damages, plus litigation expenses;

b) P1,000,000.00 as moral damages;

c) P100,000.00 as attorney's fees;

d) Costs of the instant suit.

The claim for exemplary damages is denied for the reason that the defendants (sic) did in a wanton fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

In its appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner assigned as errors, 8 that:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TYPHOON "SALING", AS AN ACT OF GOD, IS NOT "THE SOLE AND ABSOLUTE REASON" FOR THE RIPPING-OFF OF THE SMALL PORTION OF THE ROOF OF SOUTHEASTERN'S FOUR (4) STOREY SCHOOL BUILDING.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT "THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT'S SCHOOL BUILDING WAS FAULTY" NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMISSION THAT THERE WERE

TYPHOONS BEFORE BUT NOT AS GRAVE AS TYPHOON "SALING" WHICH IS THE DIRECT AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES AS WELL AS ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS OF SUIT TO DIMAANOS WHEN THEY HAVE NOT INCURRED ACTUAL DAMAGES AT ALL AS DIMAANOS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR PROPERTY, AN INTERVENING EVENT THAT RENDERS THIS CASE MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION INSPITE OF THE PERFECTION OF SOUTHEASTERN'S APPEAL WHEN THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON FOR THE ISSUANCE THERETO.

As mentioned earlier, respondent Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court's disposition by reducing the award of moral damages from P1,000,000.00 to P200,000.00. Hence, petitioner's resort to this Court, raising for resolution the issues of:

1. Whether or not the award of actual damages [sic] to respondent Dimaanos on the basis of speculation or conjecture, without proof or receipts of actual damage, [sic] legally feasible or justified.

2. Whether or not the award of moral damages to respondent Dimaanos, with the latter having suffered, actual damage has legal basis.

3. Whether or not respondent Dimaanos who are no longer the owner of the property, subject matter of the case, during its pendency, has the right to pursue their complaint against petitioner when the case was already moot and academic by the sale of the property to third party.

4. Whether or not the award of attorney's fees when the case was already moot academic [sic] legally justified.

5. Whether or not petitioner is liable for damage caused to others by typhoon "Saling" being an act of God.

6. Whether or not the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, ex-parte or without hearing, has support in law.

The pivot of inquiry here, determinative of the other issues, is whether the damage on the roof of the building of private respondents resulting from the impact of the falling portions of the school building's roof ripped off by the strong winds of typhoon "Saling", was, within legal contemplation, due to fortuitous event? If so, petitioner cannot be held liable for the damages suffered by the private respondents. This conclusion finds support in Article 1174 of Civil Code, which provides:

Art 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

The antecedent of fortuitous event or caso fortuito is found in the Partidas which defines it as "an event which takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen." 9 Escriche elaborates it as "an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted." 10 Civilist Arturo M. Tolentino adds that "[f]ortuitous events may be produced by two general causes: (1) by nature, such as earthquakes, storms, floods, epidemics, fires, etc. and (2) by the act of man, such as an armed invasion, attack by bandits, governmental prohibitions, robbery, etc." 11

In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. 12 An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences. When a person's negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage or injury to another, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damages or injury was a fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man — whether it be from active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act — the whole occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God. 13

In the case under consideration, the lower court accorded full credence to the finding of the investigating team that subject school building's roofing had "no sufficient anchorage to hold it in position especially when battered by strong winds." Based on such finding, the trial court imputed negligence to petitioner and adjudged it liable for damages to private respondents.

After a thorough study and evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court believes otherwise, notwithstanding the general rule that factual findings by the trail court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive upon this Court. 14 After a careful scrutiny of the records and the pleadings submitted by the parties, we find exception to this rule and hold that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence proffered.

There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care. 15 In order to be exempt from liability arising from any adverse consequence engendered thereby, there should have been no human participation amounting to a negligent act. 16 In other words; the person seeking exoneration from liability must not be guilty of negligence. Negligence, as commonly understood, is conduct which naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justify demand, 17 or the omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man, guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, woulddo. 18 From these premises, we proceed to determine whether petitioner was negligent, such that if it were not, the damage caused to private respondents' house could have been avoided?

At the outset, it bears emphasizing that a person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of fault or negligence causative of his injury or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence, 19 not merely by presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact. Private respondents, in establishing the culpability of petitioner, merely relied on the aforementioned report submitted by a team which made an ocular inspection of petitioner's school building after the typhoon. As the term imparts, an ocular inspection is one by means of actual sight or viewing. 20 What is visual to the eye through, is not always reflective of the real cause behind. For instance, one who hears a gunshot and then sees a wounded person, cannot always definitely conclude that a third person shot the victim. It could have been self-inflicted or caused accidentally by a stray bullet. The relationship of cause and effect must be clearly shown.

In the present case, other than the said ocular inspection, no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the partial unroofing of petitioner's school building. Private respondents did not even show that the plans, specifications and design of said school building were deficient and defective. Neither did they prove any substantial deviation from the approved plans and specifications. Nor did they conclusively establish that the construction of such building was basically flawed. 21

On the other hand, petitioner elicited from one of the witnesses of private respondents, city building official Jesus Reyna, that the original plans and design of petitioner's school building were approved prior to its construction. Engr. Reyna admitted that it was a legal requirement before the construction of any building to obtain a permit from the city building official (city engineer, prior to the passage of the Building Act of 1977). In like manner, after construction of the building, a certification must be secured from the same official attesting to the readiness for occupancy of the edifice. Having obtained both building permit and certificate of occupancy, these are, at the very least, prima facie evidence of the regular and proper construction of subject school building. 22

Furthermore, when part of its roof needed repairs of the damage inflicted by typhoon "Saling", the same city official gave the go-signal for such repairs — without any deviation from the original design — and subsequently, authorized the use of the entire fourth floor of the same building. These only prove that subject building suffers from no structural defect, contrary to the report that its "U-shaped" form was "structurally defective." Having given his unqualified imprimatur, the city building official is presumed to have properly performed his duties 23 in connection therewith.

In addition, petitioner presented its vice president for finance and administration who testified that an annual maintenance inspection and repair of subject school building were regularly undertaken. Petitioner was even willing to present its maintenance supervisor to attest to the extent of such regular inspection but private respondents agreed to dispense with his testimony and simply stipulated that it would be corroborative of the vice president's narration.

Moreover, the city building official, who has been in the city government service since 1974, admitted in open court that no complaint regarding any defect on the same structure has ever been lodged before his office prior to the institution of the case at bench. It is a matter of judicial notice that typhoons are common occurrences in this country. If subject school building's roofing was not firmly anchored to its trusses, obviously, it could not have withstood long years and several typhoons even stronger than "Saling."

In light of the foregoing, we find no clear and convincing evidence to sustain the judgment of the appellate court. We thus hold that petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of its school building in question and that typhoon "Saling" was the proximate cause of the damage suffered by private respondents' house.

With this disposition on the pivotal issue, private respondents' claim for actual and moral damages as well as attorney's fees must fail. 24 Petitioner cannot be made to answer for a purely fortuitous event. 25 More so because no bad faith or willful act to cause damage was alleged and proven to warrant moral damages.

Private respondents failed to adduce adequate and competent proof of the pecuniary loss they actually incurred. 26 It is not enough that the damage be capable of proof but must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty, pointing out specific facts that afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory damages are borne. 27 Private respondents merely submitted an estimated amount needed for the repair of the roof their subject building. What is more, whether the "necessary repairs" were caused ONLY by petitioner's alleged negligence in the maintenance of its school building, or included the ordinary wear and tear of the house itself, is an essential question that remains indeterminable.

The Court deems unnecessary to resolve the other issues posed by petitioner.

As regards the sixth issue, however, the writ of execution issued on April 1, 1993 by the trial court is hereby nullified and set aside. Private respondents are ordered to reimburse any amount or return to petitioner any property which they may have received by virtue of the enforcement of said writ.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the challenged Decision is REVERSED. The complaint of private respondents in Civil Case No. 7314 before the trial court a quo is ordered DISMISSED and the writ of execution issued on April 1, 1993 in said case is

SET ASIDE. Accordingly, private respondents are ORDERED to return to petitioner any amount or property received by them by virtue of said writ. Costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Romero and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

# Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 28-41.

2 Ibid., p. 42.

3 Seventh Division, composed of J. Jose dela Rama, ponente; with JJ. Emeterio C. Cui (chairman) and Eduardo G. Montenegro, concurring.

4 CA Decision, p. 13; Rollo, p. 40.

5 Records, pp. 127-128.

6 Ibid., pp. 1-3.

7 CA, rollo, pp. 63-69.

8 Rollo, pp. 20-21.

9 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1991 ed., Col IV, p. 126.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., p. 130, citing Tan Chiong vs. Inchausti, 22 Phil 152, 1912. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals, 144 SCRA 596, 607, October 3, 1986. See also Metal Forming Corporation vs. Office of the President, 247 SCRA 731, 728-739, August 28, 1995.

13 Nakpil & Sons, vs. Court of Appeals, Ibid., pp. 606-607. See also Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5, 15, November 6, 1989.

14 Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703, February 26, 1997; Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 606, August 23, 1995; Acebedo Optical Co., vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 409, November 29, 1995.

15 Nakpil & Sons, vs. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 606, citing 1 CJS 1174.

16 Batangas Laguan Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 379, 386, November 14, 1988.

17 Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303, February 7, 1996. cf. Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan, 244 SCRA 224, May 22, 1195; Citibank, NA vs. Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212, January 18, 1995.

18 Layugan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363, 372-273, November 14, 1988; Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 97626, March 14, 1997.

19 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 94, 106, September 29, 1989, citing Barcelo vs. manila Electric Railroad & Light Co., 29 Phil 351, January 28, 1915.

20 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971 ed.; Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 2nd ed.

21 CF, Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals, supra. See also Quisumbing Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 605, September 14, 1990.

22 cf. Yap Kim Chuan vs. Tiaoqui, 31 Phil 433, September 18, 1915.

23 Tatad vs. Garcia Jr., 243 SCRA 436, April 6, 1995; People vs. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679, October 2, 1995.

24 Toyota Shaw, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 320, May 23, 1995; Custodio vs. Court of Appeals, 253, SCRA 483, February 9, 1996; Syquia vs. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 624, January 27, 1993.

25 Itan Chiong vs. Inchausti, supra.

26 Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 746, May 15, 1996.

27 Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 348, January 20, 1995.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-53401 November 6, 1989

THE ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, (First Division) LILIAN JUAN LUIS, JANE JUAN YABES, VIRGINIA JUAN CID, GLORIA JUAN CARAG, and PURISIMA JUAN, respondents.

Herman D. Coloma for petitioner.

Glicerio S. Ferrer for private respondents.

 

PARAS, J.:

Sought to be reversed in this petition is the Decision * of the respondent Court of Appeals' First Division, setting aside the judgment of the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Ilocos Norte, with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby set aside and another rendered in its stead whereby defendant is hereby sentenced to pay plaintiffs actual damages of P30,229.45; compensatory damages of P50,000.00; exemplary damages of P10,000.00; attorney's fees of P3,000.00; plus the costs of suit in both instances. (p. 27 Rollo)

Basically, this case involves a clash of evidence whereby both patties strive for the recognition of their respective versions of the scenario from which the disputed claims originate. The respondent Court of Appeals (CA) summarized the evidence of the parties as follows:

From the evidence of plaintiffs it appears that in the evening of June 28 until the early morning of June 29, 1967 a strong typhoon by the code name "Gening" buffeted the province of Ilocos Norte, bringing heavy rains and consequent flooding in its wake. Between 5:30 and 6:00 A.M. on June 29, 1967, after the typhoon had abated and when the floodwaters were beginning to recede the deceased Isabel Lao Juan, fondly called Nana Belen, ventured out of the house of her son-in-law, Antonio Yabes, on No. 19 Guerrero Street, Laoag City, and proceeded northward towards the direction of the Five Sisters Emporium, of which she was the owner and proprietress, to look after the merchandise therein that might have been damaged. Wading in waist-deep flood on Guerrero, the deceased was followed by Aida Bulong, a Salesgirl at the Five Sisters Grocery, also owned by the deceased, and by Linda Alonzo Estavillo, a ticket seller at the YJ Cinema, which was partly owned by the deceased. Aida and Linda walked side by side at a distance of between 5 and 6 meters behind the deceased, Suddenly, the deceased screamed "Ay" and quickly sank into the water. The two girls attempted to help, but fear dissuaded them from doing so because on the spot where the deceased sank they saw an electric wire dangling from a post and moving in snake-like fashion in the water. Upon their shouts for help, Ernesto dela Cruz came out of the house of Antonio Yabes. Ernesto tried to go to the deceased, but at four meters away from her he turned back shouting that the water was grounded. Aida and Linda prodded Ernesto to seek help from Antonio Yabes at the YJ Cinema building which was four or five blocks away.

When Antonio Yabes was informed by Ernesto that his mother-in law had been electrocuted, he acted immediately. With his wife Jane, together with Ernesto and one Joe Ros, Yabes passed by the City Hall of Laoag to request the police to ask the people of defendant Ilocos Norte Electric Company or INELCO to cut off the electric current. Then the party waded to the house on Guerrero Street. The floodwater was receding and the lights inside the house were out indicating that the electric current had been cut off in Guerrero. Yabes

instructed his boys to fish for the body of the deceased. The body was recovered about two meters from an electric post.

In another place, at about 4:00 A.M. on that fateful date, June 29, 1967, Engineer Antonio Juan, Power Plant Engineer of the National Power Corporation at the Laoag Diesel-Electric Plant, noticed certain fluctuations in their electric meter which indicated such abnormalities as grounded or short-circuited lines. Between 6:00 and 6:30 A.M., he set out of the Laoag NPC Compound on an inspection. On the way, he saw grounded and disconnected lines. Electric lines were hanging from the posts to the ground. Since he could not see any INELCO lineman, he decided to go to the INELCO Office at the Life Theatre on Rizal Street by way of Guerrero. As he turned right at the intersection of Guerrero and Rizal, he saw an electric wire about 30 meters long strung across the street "and the other end was seeming to play with the current of the water." (p. 64, TSN, Oct. 24, 1972) Finding the Office of the INELCO still closed, and seeing no lineman therein, he returned to the NPC Compound.

At about 8:10 A.M., Engr. Juan went out of the compound again on another inspection trip. Having learned of the death of Isabel Lao Juan, he passed by the house of the deceased at the corner of Guerrero and M.H. del Pilar streets to which the body had been taken. Using the resuscitator which was a standard equipment in his jeep and employing the skill he acquired from an in service training on resuscitation, he tried to revive the deceased. His efforts proved futile. Rigor mortis was setting in. On the left palm of the deceased, Engr. Juan noticed a hollow wound. Proceeding to the INELCO Office, he met two linemen on the way. He told them about the grounded lines of the INELCO In the afternoon of the same day, he went on a third inspection trip preparatory to the restoration of power. The dangling wire he saw on Guerrero early in the morning of June 29, 1967 was no longer there.

Many people came to the house at the corner of Guerrero and M.H. del Pilar after learning that the deceased had been electrocuted. Among the sympathizers was Dr. Jovencio Castro, Municipal Health Officer of Sarrat, Ilocos Norte. Upon the request of the relatives of the deceased, Dr. Castro examined the body at about 8:00 A.M. on June 29, 1967. The skin was grayish or, in medical parlance, cyanotic, which indicated death by electrocution. On the left palm, the doctor found an "electrically charged wound" (Exh. C-1: p. 101, TSN, Nov. 28, 1972) or a first degree burn. About the base of the thumb on the left hand was a burned wound. (Exh. C-2, pp. 102-103, Ibid.) The certificate of death prepared by Dr. Castro stated the cause of' death as ,'circulatory shock electrocution" (Exh. I; p. 103, Ibid.).

In defense and exculpation, defendant presented the testimonies of its officers and employees, namely, Conrado Asis, electric engineer; Loreto Abijero, collector-inspector; Fabico Abijero, lineman; and Julio Agcaoili, president-manager of INELCO Through the testimonies of these witnesses, defendant sought to prove that on and even before June 29, 1967 the electric service system of the INELCO in the whole franchise area, including Area No. 9 which covered the residence of Antonio Yabes at No. 18 Guerrero Street, did not suffer from any defect that might constitute a hazard to life and property. The service lines, devices and other INELCO equipment in Area No. 9 had been newly-installed prior to the date in question. As a public service operator and in line with its business of supplying electric current to the public, defendant had installed safety devices to prevent and avoid injuries to persons and damage to property in case of natural calamities such as floods, typhoons, fire and others. Defendant had 12 linesmen charged with the duty of making a round-the-clock check-up of the areas respectively assigned to them.

Defendant asserts that although a strong typhoon struck the province of Ilocos Norte on June 29, 1967, putting to streets of Laoag City under water, only a few known places in Laoag were reported to have suffered damaged electric lines, namely, at the southern approach of the Marcos Bridge which was washed away and where the INELCO lines and posts collapsed; in the eastern part near the residence of the late Governor Simeon Mandac; in the far north near the defendant's power plant at the corner of Segundo and Castro Streets, Laoag City and at the far northwest side, near the premises of the Ilocos Norte National High School. Fabico Abijero, testified that in the early morning before 6 o'clock on June 29, 1967 he passed by the intersection of Rizal and Guerrero Streets to switch off the street lights in Area No. 9. He did not see any cut or broken wires in or near the vicinity. What he saw were many people fishing out the body of Isabel Lao Juan.

A witness in the person of Dr. Antonio Briones was presented by the defense to show that the deceased could not have died of electrocution Substantially, the testimony of the doctor is as follows: Without an autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, no doctor, not even a medicolegal expert, can speculate as to the real cause of death. Cyanosis could not have been found in the body of the deceased three hours after her death, because cyanosis which means lack of oxygen circulating in the blood and rendering the color of the skin purplish, appears only in a live person. The presence of the elongated burn in the left palm of the deceased (Exhibits C-1 and C-2) is not sufficient to establish her death by electrocution; since burns caused by electricity are more or less round in shape and with points of entry and exit. Had the deceased held the lethal wire for a long time, the laceration in her palm would have been bigger and the injury more massive. (CA Decision, pp. 18-21, Rollo)

An action for damages in the aggregate amount of P250,000 was instituted by the heirs of the deceased with the aforesaid CFI on June 24, 1968. In its Answer (Vide, Record on Appeal, p. 55, Rollo), petitioner advanced the theory, as a special defense, that the deceased could have died simply either by drowning or by electrocution due to negligence attributable only to herself and not to petitioner. In this regard, it was pointed out that the deceased, without petitioner's knowledge, caused the installation of a burglar deterrent by connecting a wire from the main house to the iron gate and fence of steel matting, thus, charging the latter with electric current whenever the switch is on. Petitioner then conjectures that the switch to said burglar deterrent must have been left on, hence, causing the deceased's electrocution when she tried to open her gate that early morning of June 29, 1967. After due trial, the CFI found the facts in favor of petitioner and dismissed the complaint but awarded to the latter P25,000 in moral damages and attorney's fees of P45,000. An appeal was filed with the CA which issued the controverted decision.

In this petition for review the petitioner assigns the following errors committed by the respondent CA:

1. The respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and error in considering the purely hearsay alleged declarations of Ernesto de la Cruz as part of the res gestae.

2. The respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and error in holding that the strong typhoon "Gening" which struck Laoag City and Ilocos Norte on June 29, 1967 and the flood and deluge it brought in its wake were not fortuitous events and did not exonerate petitioner-company from liability for the death of Isabel Lao Juan.

3. The respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and erred in not applying the legal principle of "assumption of risk" in the present case to bar private respondents from collecting damages from petitioner company.

4. That the respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred and abused its discretion in completely reversing the findings of fact of the trial court.

5. The findings of fact of the respondent Court of Appeals are reversible under the recognized exceptions.

6. The trial court did not err in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees to defendant corporation, now petitioner company.

7. Assuming arguendo that petitioner company may be held liable from the death of the late Isabel Lao Juan, the damages granted by respondent Court of Appeals are improper and exhorbitant. (Petitioners Memorandum, p. 133, Rollo)

Basically, three main issues are apparent: (1) whether or not the deceased died of electrocution; (2) whether or not petitioner may be held liable for the deceased's death; and (3) whether or not the respondent CA's substitution of the trial court's factual findings for its own was proper.

In considering the first issue, it is Our view that the same be resolved in the affirmative. By a preponderance of evidence, private respondents were able to show that the deceased died of electrocution, a conclusion which can be primarily derived from the photographed burnt wounds (Exhibits "C", "C-1", "C-2") on the left palm of the former. Such wounds undoubtedly point to the fact that the deceased had clutched a live wire of the petitioner. This was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Jovencio Castro who actually examined the body of the deceased a few hours after the death and described the said burnt wounds as a "first degree burn" (p. 144, TSN, December 11, 1972) and that they were "electrically charged" (p. 102, TSN, November 28, 1972). Furthermore, witnesses Linda Alonzo Estavillo and Aida Bulong added that after the deceased screamed "Ay" and sank into the water, they tried to render some help but were overcome with fear by the sight of an electric wire dangling from an electric post, moving in the water in a snake-like fashion (supra). The foregoing therefore justifies the respondent CA in concluding that "(t)he nature of the wounds as described by the witnesses who saw them can lead to no other conclusion than that they were "burns," and there was nothing else in the street where the victim was wading thru which could cause a burn except the dangling live wire of defendant company" (CA Decision, p. 22, Rollo).

But in order to escape liability, petitioner ventures into the theory that the deceased was electrocuted, if such was really the case when she tried to open her steel gate, which was electrically charged by an electric wire she herself caused to install to serve as a burglar deterrent. Petitioner suggests that the switch to said burglar alarm was left on. But this is mere speculation, not backed up with evidence. As required by the Rules, "each party must prove his own affirmative allegations." (Rule 131, Sec. 1). Nevertheless, the CA significantly noted that "during the trial, this theory was abandoned" by the petitioner (CA Decision, p. 23, Rollo).

Furthermore the CA properly applied the principle of res gestae. The CA said:

Linda Alonzo Estavillo, a ticket seller, and Aida Bulong, a salesgirl, were with the deceased during that fateful morning of June 29, 1967. This Court has not been offered any sufficient reason to discredit the testimonies of these two young ladies. They were one in the affirmation that the deceased, while wading in the waist-deep flood on Guerrero Street five or six meters ahead of them, suddenly screamed "Ay" and quickly sank into the water. When they approached the deceased to help, they were stopped by the sight of an electric wire dangling from a post and moving in snake-like fashion in the water. Ernesto dela Cruz also tried to approach the deceased, but he turned back shouting that the water was grounded. These bits of evidence carry much weight. For the subject of the testimonies was a startling occurrence, and the declarations may be considered part of the res gestae. (CA Decision, p. 21, Rollo)

For the admission of the res gestae in evidence, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; (3) that the statements made must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances (People vs. Ner, 28 SCRA 1151; People vs. Balbas, 122 SCRA 959). We do not find any abuse of discretion on the CA' part in view of the satisfaction of said requisites in the case at bar.

The statements made relative to the startling occurrence are admitted in evidence precisely as an exception to the hearsay rule on the grounds of trustworthiness and necessity. "Trustworthiness" because the statements are made instinctively (Wesley vs. State,

53 Ala. 182), and "necessity" because such natural and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the testimony of the same person on the stand (Mobile vs. Ascraft 48 Ala. 31). Therefore, the fact that the declarant, Ernesto de la Cruz, was not presented to testify does not make the testimony of Linda Alonzo Estavillo and Aida Bulong hearsay since the said declaration is part of the res gestae. Similarly, We considered part of the res gestae a conversation between two accused immediately after commission of the crime as overheard by a prosecution witness (People vs. Reyes, 82 Phil. 563).

While it may be true that, as petitioner argues (vide petitioner's Memorandum, p. 135, Rollo), Ernesto de la Cruz was not an actual witness to the instant when the deceased sank into the waist-deep water, he acted upon the call of help of Aida Bulong and Linda Alonzo Estavillo with the knowledge of, and immediately after, the sinking of the deceased. In fact the startling event had not yet ceased when Ernesto de la Cruz entered the scene considering that the victim remained submerged. Under such a circumstance, it is undeniable that a state of mind characterized by nervous excitement had been triggered in Ernesto de la Cruz's being as anybody under the same contingency could have experienced. As such, We cannot honestly exclude his shouts that the water was grounded from the res gestae just because he did not actually see the sinking of the deceased nor hear her scream "Ay."

Neither can We dismiss the said declaration as a mere opinion of Ernesto de la Cruz. While We concede to the submission that the statement must be one of facts rather than opinion, We cannot agree to the proposition that the one made by him was a mere opinion. On the contrary, his shout was a translation of an actuality as perceived by him through his sense of touch.

Finally, We do not agree that the taking of Ernesto de la Cruz' testimony was suppressed by the private respondents, thus, is presumed to be adverse to them pursuant to Section 5(e), Rule 131. For the application of said Rule as against a party to a case, it is necessary that the evidence alleged to be suppressed is available only to said party (People vs. Tulale, L-7233, 18 May 1955, 97 Phil. 953). The presumption does not operate if the evidence in question is equally available to both parties (StaplesHowe Printing Co. vs. Bldg. and Loan Assn., 36 Phil. 421). It is clear from the records that petitioner could have called Ernesto de la Cruz to the witness stand. This, precisely, was Linda Alonzo Estavillo's suggestion to petitioner's counsel when she testified on cross examination:

Q. And that Erning de la Cruz, how far did he reach from the gate of the house?

A. Well, you can ask that matter from him sir because he is here. (TSN, p. 30, 26 Sept. 1972)

The foregoing shows that petitioner had the opportunity to verify the declarations of Ernesto de la Cruz which, if truly adverse to private respondent, would have helped its case. However, due to reasons known only to petitioner, the opportunity was not taken.

Coming now to the second issue, We tip the scales in the private respondents' favor. The respondent CA acted correctly in disposing the argument that petitioner be exonerated from liability since typhoons and floods are fortuitous events. While it is true that typhoons and floods are considered Acts of God for which no person may be held responsible, it was not said eventuality which directly caused the victim's death. It was through the intervention of petitioner's negligence that death took place. We subscribe to the conclusions of the respondent CA when it found:

On the issue whether or not the defendant incurred liability for the electrocution and consequent death of the late Isabel Lao Juan, defendant called to the witness-stand its electrical engineer, chief lineman, and lineman to show exercise of extraordinary diligence and to negate the charge of negligence. The witnesses testified in a general way about their duties and the measures which defendant usually adopts to prevent hazards to life and limb. From these testimonies, the lower court found "that the electric lines and other equipment of defendant corporation were properly maintained by a well-trained team of lineman, technicians and engineers working around the clock to insure that these equipments were in excellent condition at all times." (P. 40, Record on Appeal) The finding of the lower court, however, was based on what the defendant's employees were supposed to do, not on what they actually did or failed to do on the date in question, and not on the occasion of the emergency situation brought about by the typhoon.

The lower court made a mistake in assuming that defendant's employees worked around the clock during the occurrence of the typhoon on the night of June 28 and until the early morning of June 29, 1967, Engr. Antonio Juan of the National Power Corporation affirmed that when he first set out on an inspection trip between 6:00 and 6:30 A.M. on June 29, 1967, he saw grounded and disconnected electric lines of the defendant but he saw no INELCO lineman. The INELCO Office at the Life theatre on Rizal Street was still closed. (pp. 63-64, TSN, Oct. 24, 1972) Even the witnesses of defendant contradict the finding of the lower court. Conrado Asis, defendant's electrical engineer, testified that he conducted a general inspection of the franchise area of the INELCO only on June 30, 1967, the day following the typhoon. The reason he gave for the delay was that all their vehicles were submerged. (p. 337, TSN, July 20, 1973) According to Asis, he arrived at his office at 8:00 A.M. on June 30 and after briefing his men on what to do they started out. (p. 338, lbid) One or two days after the typhoon, the INELCO people heard "rumors that someone was electrocuted" so he sent one of his men to the place but his man reported back that there was no damaged wire. (p. 385, Id.) Loreto Abijero, chief lineman of defendant, corroborated Engr. Juan. He testified that at about 8:00 A.M. on June 29, 1967 Engr. Juan came to the INELCO plant and asked the INELCO people to inspect their lines. He went with Engr. Juan and their inspection lasted from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon. (pp. 460, 465, TSN, Jan. 28, 1975) Fabico Abijero lineman of defendant, testified that at about 6:00 on June 29, 1967 the typhoon ceased. At that time, he was at the main building of the Divine Word College of Laoag where he had taken his family for refuge. (pp. 510-511, Ibid.)

In times of calamities such as the one which occurred in Laoag City on the night of June 28 until the early hours of June 29, 1967, extraordinary diligence requires a supplier of electricity to be in constant vigil to prevent or avoid any probable incident that might imperil life or limb. The evidence does not show that defendant did that. On the contrary, evidence discloses that there were no men (linemen or otherwise) policing the area, nor even manning its office. (CA Decision, pp. 24-25, Rollo)

Indeed, under the circumstances of the case, petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the general public"... considering that electricity is an agency, subtle and deadly, the measure of care required of electric companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to the danger. The duty of exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to every place where persons have a right to be" (Astudillo vs. Manila Electric, 55 Phil. 427). The negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not now absolve itself from liability by arguing that the victim's death was solely due to a fortuitous event. "When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission" (38 Am. Jur., p. 649).

Likewise, the maxim "volenti non fit injuria" relied upon by petitioner finds no application in the case at bar. It is imperative to note the surrounding circumstances which impelled the deceased to leave the comforts of a roof and brave the subsiding typhoon. As testified by Linda Alonzo Estavillo (see TSN, p. 5, 26 Sept. 1972) and Aida Bulong (see TSN, p. 43, 26 Sept. 1972), the deceased, accompanied by the former two, were on their way to the latter's grocery store "to see to it that the goods were not flooded." As such, shall We punish her for exercising her right to protect her property from the floods by imputing upon her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the risk of personal injury? Definitely not. For it has been held that a person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril (65A C.S.C. Negligence(174(5), p. 301), or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property (Harper and James, "The Law of Torts." Little, Brown and Co., 1956, v. 2, p. 1167). Clearly, an emergency was at hand as the deceased's property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with an impending loss. Furthermore, the deceased, at the time the fatal incident occurred, was at a place where she had a right to be without regard to petitioner's consent as she was on her way to protect her merchandise. Hence, private respondents, as heirs, may not be barred from recovering damages as a result of the death caused by petitioner's negligence (ibid., p. 1165, 1166).

But petitioner assails the CA for having abused its discretion in completely reversing the trial court's findings of fact, pointing to the testimonies of three of its employees its electrical engineer, collector-inspector, lineman, and president-manager to the effect that it had exercised the degree of diligence required of it in keeping its electric lines free from defects that may imperil life and limb. Likewise, the said employees of petitioner categorically disowned the fatal wires as they appear in two photographs taken on the afternoon of June 29, 1967 (Exhs. "D" and "E"), suggesting that said wires were just hooked to the electric post (petitioner's Memorandum, p. 170, Rollo). However, as the CA properly held, "(t)he finding of the lower court ... was based on what the defendant's employees were supposed to do, not on what they actually did or failed to do on the date in question, and not on the occasion of the emergency situation brought about by the typhoon" (CA Decision, p. 25, Rollo). And as found by the CA, which We have already reiterated above, petitioner was in fact negligent. In a like manner, petitioner's denial of ownership of the several wires cannot stand the logical conclusion reached by the CA when it held that "(t)he nature of the wounds as described by the witnesses who saw them can lead to no other conclusion than that they were 'burns', and there was nothing else in the street where the victim was wading thru which could cause a burn except the dangling live wire of defendant company" (supra).

"When a storm occurs that is liable to prostrate the wires, due care requires prompt efforts to discover and repair broken lines" (Cooley on Torts, 4th ed., v. 3, p. 474). The fact is that when Engineer Antonio Juan of the National Power Corporation set out in the early morning of June 29, 1967 on an inspection tour, he saw grounded and disconnected lines hanging from posts to the ground but did not see any INELCO lineman either in the streets or at the INELCO office (vide, CA Decision, supra). The foregoing shows that petitioner's duty to exercise extraordinary diligence under the circumstance was not observed, confirming the negligence of petitioner. To aggravate matters, the CA found:

. . .even before June 28 the people in Laoag were already alerted about the impending typhoon, through radio announcements. Even the fire department of the city announced the coming of the big flood. (pp. 532-534, TSN, March 13, 1975) At the INELCO irregularities in the flow of electric current were noted because "amperes of the switch volts were moving". And yet, despite these danger signals, INELCO had to wait for Engr. Juan to request that defendant's switch be cut off but the harm was done. Asked why the delay, Loreto Abijero answered that he "was not the machine tender of the electric plant to switch off the current." (pp. 467-468, Ibid.) How very characteristic of gross inefficiency! (CA Decision, p. 26, Rollo)

From the preceding, We find that the CA did not abuse its discretion in reversing the trial court's findings but tediously considered the factual circumstances at hand pursuant to its power to review questions of fact raised from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, formerly the Court of First Instance (see sec. 9, BP 129).

In considering the liability of petitioner, the respondent CA awarded the following in private respondent's favor: P30,229.45 in actual damages (i.e., P12,000 for the victim's death and P18,229.45 for funeral expenses); P50,000 in compensatory damages, computed in accordance with the formula set in the Villa-Rey Transit case (31 SCRA 511) with the base of P15,000 as average annual income of the deceased; P10,000 in exemplary damages; P3,000 attorney's fees; and costs of suit. Except for the award of P12,000 as compensation for the victim's death, We affirm the respondent CA's 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.

The exclusion of moral damages and attorney's fees awarded by the lower court was properly made by the respondent CA, the charge of malice and bad faith on the part of respondents in instituting his case being a mere product of wishful thinking and speculation. Award of damages and attorney's fees is unwarranted where the action was filed in good faith; there should be no penalty on the right to litigate (Espiritu vs. CA, 137 SCRA 50). If damage results from a person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria (Auyong Hian vs. CTA, 59 SCRA 110).

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the respondent, except for the slight modification that actual damages be increased to P48,229.45 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

* Penned by then Acting Presiding Justice Lourdes P. San Diego and concurred in by Justices Samuel F. Reyes and Lino M. Patajo.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL, petitioners, vs.THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO, respondents.

 

FELICIANO, J:

In the early morning of 15 November 1975 — at about 1:30 a.m. — private respondent Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home — he lived in 1214-B Zamora Street, Bangkal, Makati — from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss, the general manager of a marketing corporation. During the cocktails phase of the evening, Dionisio had taken "a shot or two" of liquor. Dionisio was driving his Volkswagen car and had just crossed the intersection of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets at Bangkal, Makati, not far from his home, and was proceeding down General Lacuna Street, when his car headlights (in his allegation) suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on "bright" and thereupon he saw a Ford dump truck looming some 2-1/2 meters away from his car. The dump truck, owned by and registered in the name of petitioner Phoenix Construction Inc. ("Phoenix"), was parked on the right hand side of General Lacuna Street (i.e., on the right hand side of a person facing in the same direction toward which Dionisio's car was proceeding), facing the oncoming traffic. The dump truck was parked askew (not parallel to the street curb) in such a manner as to stick out onto the street, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no lights nor any so-called "early warning" reflector devices set anywhere near the dump truck, front or rear. The dump truck had earlier that evening been driven home by petitioner Armando U. Carbonel, its regular driver, with the permission of his employer Phoenix, in view of work scheduled to be carried out early the following morning, Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision by swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck. As a result of the collision, Dionisio suffered some physical injuries including some permanent facial scars, a "nervous breakdown" and loss of two gold bridge dentures.

Dionisio commenced an action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga basically claiming that the legal and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent manner in which Carbonel had parked the dump truck entrusted to him by his employer Phoenix. Phoenix and Carbonel, on the other hand, countered that the proximate cause of Dionisio's injuries was his own recklessness in driving fast at the time of the accident, while under the influence of liquor, without his headlights on and without a curfew pass. Phoenix also sought to establish that it had exercised due rare in the selection and supervision of the dump truck driver.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Dionisio and against Phoenix and Carbonel and ordered the latter:

(1) To pay plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P 15,000.00 for hospital bills and the replacement of the lost dentures of plaintiff;

(2) To pay plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P 1,50,000.-00 as loss of expected income for plaintiff brought about the accident in controversy and which is the result of the negligence of the defendants;

(3) To pay the plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P 10,000. as moral damages for the unexpected and sudden withdrawal of plaintiff from his lifetime career as a marketing man; mental anguish, wounded feeling, serious anxiety, social humiliation, besmirched reputation, feeling of economic insecurity, and the untold sorrows and frustration in life experienced by plaintiff and his family since the accident in controversy up to the present time;

(4) To pay plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P 10,000.00 as damages for the wanton disregard of defendants to settle amicably this case with the plaintiff before the filing of this case in court for a smaller amount.

(5) To pay the plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P 4,500.00 due as and for attorney's fees; and

(6) The cost of suit. (Emphasis supplied)

Phoenix and Carbonel appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court. That court in CA-G.R. No. 65476 affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the award of damages to the following extent:

1. The award of P15,000.00 as compensatory damages was reduced to P6,460.71, the latter being the only amount that the appellate court found the plaintiff to have proved as actually sustained by him;

2. The award of P150,000.00 as loss of expected income was reduced to P100,000.00, basically because Dionisio had voluntarily resigned his job such that, in the opinion of the appellate court, his loss of income "was not solely attributable to the accident in question;" and

3. The award of P100,000.00 as moral damages was held by the appellate court as excessive and unconscionable and hence reduced to P50,000.00.

The award of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P4,500.00 as attorney's fees and costs remained untouched.

This decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is now before us on a petition for review.

Both the trial court and the appellate court had made fairly explicit findings of fact relating to the manner in which the dump truck was parked along General Lacuna Street on the basis of which both courts drew the inference that there was negligence on the part of Carbonel, the dump truck driver, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and Dionisio's injuries. We note, however, that both courts failed to pass upon the defense raised by Carbonel and Phoenix that the true legal and proximate cause of the accident was not the way in which the dump truck had been parked but rather the reckless way in which Dionisio had driven his car that night when he smashed into the dump truck. The Intermediate Appellate Court in its questioned decision casually conceded that Dionisio was "in some way, negligent" but apparently failed to see the relevance of Dionisio's negligence and made no further mention of it. We have examined the record both before the trial court and the Intermediate Appellate Court and we find that both parties had placed into the record sufficient evidence on the basis of which the trial court and the appellate court could have and should have made findings of fact relating to the alleged reckless manner in which Dionisio drove his car that night. The petitioners Phoenix and Carbonel contend that if there was negligence in the manner in which the dump truck was parked, that negligence was merely a "passive and static condition" and that private respondent Dionisio's recklessness constituted an intervening, efficient cause determinative of the accident and the injuries he sustained. The need to administer substantial justice as between the parties in this case, without having to remand it back to the trial court after eleven years, compels us to address directly the contention put forward by the petitioners and to examine for ourselves the record pertaining to Dionisio's alleged negligence which must bear upon the liability, or extent of liability, of Phoenix and Carbonel.

There are four factual issues that need to be looked into: (a) whether or not private respondent Dionisio had a curfew pass valid and effective for that eventful night; (b) whether Dionisio was driving fast or speeding just before the collision with the dump truck; (c) whether Dionisio had purposely turned off his car's headlights before contact with the dump truck or whether those headlights accidentally malfunctioned moments before the collision; and (d) whether Dionisio was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

As to the first issue relating to the curfew pass, it is clear that no curfew pass was found on the person of Dionisio immediately after the accident nor was any found in his car. Phoenix's evidence here consisted of the testimony of Patrolman Cuyno who had taken Dionisio, unconscious, to the Makati Medical Center for emergency treatment immediately after the accident. At the Makati Medical Center, a nurse took off Dionisio's clothes and examined them along with the contents of pockets together with Patrolman Cuyno. 1 Private respondent Dionisio was not able to produce any curfew pass during the trial. Instead, he offered the explanation that his family may have misplaced his curfew pass. He also offered a certification (dated two years after the accident) issued by one Major Benjamin N. Libarnes of the Zone Integrated Police Intelligence Unit of Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, which was said to have authority to issue curfew passes for Pampanga and Metro Manila. This certification was to the effect that private respondent Dionisio had a valid curfew pass. This certification did not, however, specify any pass serial number or date or period of effectivity of the supposed curfew pass. We find that private respondent Dionisio was unable to prove possession of a valid curfew pass during the night of the accident and that the preponderance of evidence shows that he did not have such a pass during that night. The relevance of possession or non-possession of a curfew pass that night lies in the light it tends to shed on the other related issues: whether Dionisio was speeding home and whether he had indeed purposely put out his headlights before the accident, in order to avoid detection and possibly arrest by the police in the nearby police station for travelling after the onset of curfew without a valid curfew pass.

On the second issue — whether or not Dionisio was speeding home that night — both the trial court and the appellate court were completely silent.

The defendants in the trial court introduced the testimony of Patrolman Cuyno who was at the scene of the accident almost immediately after it occurred, the police station where he was based being barely 200 meters away. Patrolman Cuyno testified that people who had gathered at the scene of the accident told him that Dionisio's car was "moving fast" and did not have its headlights on. 2 Dionisio, on the other hand, claimed that he was travelling at a moderate speed at 30 kilometers per hour and had just crossed the intersection of General Santos and General Lacuna Streets and had started to accelerate when his headlights failed just before the collision took place. 3

Private respondent Dionisio asserts that Patrolman Cuyno's testimony was hearsay and did not fag within any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule since the facts he testified to were not acquired by him through official information and had not been given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so. Private respondent's objection fails to take account of the fact that the testimony of Patrolman Cuyno is admissible not under the official records exception to the hearsay rule 4 but rather as part of the res gestae. 5 Testimonial evidence under this exception to the hearsay rule consists of excited utterances made on the occasion of an occurrence or event sufficiently startling in nature so as to render inoperative the normal reflective thought processes of the observer and hence made as a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event, and not the result of reflective thought. 6

We think that an automobile speeding down a street and suddenly smashing into a stationary object in the dead of night is a sufficiently startling event as to evoke spontaneous, rather than reflective, reactions from observers who happened to be around at that time. The testimony of Patrolman Cuyno was therefore admissible as part of the res gestae and should have been considered by the trial court. Clearly, substantial weight should have been ascribed to such testimony, even though it did not, as it could not, have purported to describe quantitatively the precise velocity at winch Dionisio was travelling just before impact with the Phoenix dump truck.

A third related issue is whether Dionisio purposely turned off his headlights, or whether his headlights accidentally malfunctioned, just moments before the accident. The Intermediate Appellate Court expressly found that the headlights of Dionisio's car went off as he crossed the intersection but was non-committal as to why they did so. It is the petitioners' contention that Dionisio purposely shut off his headlights even before he reached the intersection so as not to be detected by the police in the police precinct which he (being a resident in the area) knew was not far away from the intersection. We believe that the petitioners' theory is a more credible explanation than that offered by private respondent Dionisio — i.e., that he had his headlights on but that, at the crucial moment, these had in some mysterious if convenient way malfunctioned and gone off, although he succeeded in switching his lights on again at "bright" split seconds before contact with the dump truck.

A fourth and final issue relates to whether Dionisio was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The evidence here consisted of the testimony of Patrolman Cuyno to the effect that private respondent Dionisio smelled of liquor at the time he was taken from his smashed car and brought to the Makati Medical Center in an unconscious condition. 7 This testimony has to be taken in conjunction with the admission of Dionisio that he had taken "a shot or two" of liquor before dinner with his boss that night. We do not believe that this evidence is sufficient to show that Dionisio was so heavily under the influence of liquor as to constitute his driving a motor vehicle per se an act of reckless imprudence. 8 There simply is not enough evidence to show how much liquor he had in fact taken and the effects of that upon his physical faculties or upon his judgment or mental alertness. We are also aware that "one shot or two" of hard liquor may affect different people differently.

The conclusion we draw from the factual circumstances outlined above is that private respondent Dionisio was negligent the night of the accident. He was hurrying home that night and driving faster than he should have been. Worse, he extinguished his headlights at or near the intersection of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets and thus did not see the dump truck that was parked askew and sticking out onto the road lane.

Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of First Instance and the Intermediate Appellate Court that the legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful — or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. That there was a reasonable relationship between petitioner Carbonel's negligence on the one hand and the accident and respondent's injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different manner, the collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's negligence.

The petitioners, however, urge that the truck driver's negligence was merely a "passive and static condition" and that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was an "efficient intervening cause and that consequently Dionisio's negligence must be regarded as the legal and proximate cause of the accident rather than the earlier negligence of Carbonel. We note that the petitioners' arguments are drawn from a reading of some of the older cases in various jurisdictions in the United States but we are unable to persuade ourselves that these arguments have any validity for our jurisdiction. We note, firstly, that even in the United States, the distinctions between "cause" and "condition" which the 'petitioners would have us adopt have already been "almost entirely discredited." Professors and Keeton make this quite clear:

Cause and condition. Many courts have sought to distinguish between the active "cause" of the harm and the existing "conditions" upon which that cause operated. If the defendant has created only a passive static condition which made the damage possible, the defendant is said not to be liable. But so far as the fact of causation is concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important part in producing the result it is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. The defendant who spills gasoline about the premises creates a "condition," but the act may be culpable because of the danger of fire. When a spark ignites the gasoline, the condition has done quite as much to bring about the fire as the spark; and since that is the very risk which the defendant has created, the defendant will not escape responsibility. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not necessarily affect liability; one who digs a trench in the highway may still be liable to another who fans into it a month afterward. "Cause" and "condition" still find occasional mention in the decisions; but the distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force intervenes. But even in such cases, it is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause. 9

We believe, secondly, that the truck driver's negligence far from being a "passive and static condition" was rather an indispensable and efficient cause. The collision between the dump truck and the private respondent's car would in an probability not have occurred had the dump truck not been parked askew without any warning lights or reflector devices. The improper parking of the dump truck created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna Street and for having so created this risk, the truck driver must be held responsible. In our view, Dionisio's negligence, although later in point of time than the truck driver's negligence

and therefore closer to the accident, was not an efficient intervening or independent cause. What the Petitioners describe as an "intervening cause" was no more than a foreseeable consequent manner which the truck driver had parked the dump truck. In other words, the petitioner truck driver owed a duty to private respondent Dionisio and others similarly situated not to impose upon them the very risk the truck driver had created. Dionisio's negligence was not of an independent and overpowering nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of causation in fact between the improper parking of the dump truck and the accident, nor to sever the juris vinculum of liability. It is helpful to quote once more from Professor and Keeton:

Foreseeable Intervening Causes. If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. Thus one who sets a fire may be required to foresee that an ordinary, usual and customary wind arising later wig spread it beyond the defendant's own property, and therefore to take precautions to prevent that event. The person who leaves the combustible or explosive material exposed in a public place may foresee the risk of fire from some independent source. ... In all of these cases there is an intervening cause combining with the defendant's conduct to produce the result and in each case the defendant's negligence consists in failure to protect the plaintiff against that very risk.

Obviously the defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the defendant's negligence. The courts are quite generally agreed that intervening causes which fall fairly in this category will not supersede the defendant's responsibility.

Thus it has been held that a defendant will be required to anticipate the usual weather of the vicinity, including all ordinary forces of nature such as usual wind or rain, or snow or frost or fog or even lightning; that one who leaves an obstruction on the road or a railroad track should foresee that a vehicle or a train will run into it; ...

The risk created by the defendant may include the intervention of the foreseeable negligence of others. ... [The standard of reasonable conduct may require the defendant to protect the plaintiff against 'that occasional negligence which is one of the ordinary incidents of human life, and therefore to be anticipated.' Thus, a defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will be exposed to the risks of heavy traffic becomes liable when the plaintiff is run down by a car, even though the car is negligently driven; and one who parks an automobile on the highway without lights at night is not relieved of responsibility when another negligently drives into it. --- 10

We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines).

Petitioners also ask us to apply what they refer to as the "last clear chance" doctrine. The theory here of petitioners is that while the petitioner truck driver was negligent, private respondent Dionisio had the "last clear chance" of avoiding the accident and hence his injuries, and that Dionisio having failed to take that "last clear chance" must bear his own injuries alone. The last clear chance doctrine of the common law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith 11 but it is a matter for debate whether, or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The historical function of that doctrine in the common law was to mitigate the harshness of another common law doctrine or rule that of contributory negligence. 12 The common law rule of contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a plaintiff who was also negligent, even if the plaintiff's negligence was relatively minor as compared with the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. 13 The common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who had also been negligent provided that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do so. 14 Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 15

Is there perhaps a general concept of "last clear chance" that may be extracted from its common law matrix and utilized as a general rule in negligence cases in a civil law jurisdiction like ours? We do not believe so. Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence — the plaintiff's or the defendant's — was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or "immediate." The relative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions, is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community. The petitioners urge that the truck driver (and therefore his employer) should be absolved from responsibility for his own prior negligence because the unfortunate plaintiff failed to act with that increased diligence which had become necessary to avoid the peril precisely created by the truck driver's own wrongful act or omission. To accept this proposition is to come too close to wiping out the fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the forseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Our law on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among the members of society. To accept the petitioners' pro-position must tend to weaken the very bonds of society.

Petitioner Carbonel's proven negligence creates a presumption of negligence on the part of his employer Phoenix 16 in supervising its employees properly and adequately. The respondent appellate court in effect found, correctly in our opinion, that Phoenix was not able to overcome this presumption of negligence. The circumstance that Phoenix had allowed its truck driver to bring the dump truck to his home whenever there was work to be done early the following morning, when coupled with the failure to show any effort on the part of Phoenix to supervise the manner in which the dump truck is parked when away from company premises, is an affirmative showing of culpa in vigilando on the part of Phoenix.

Turning to the award of damages and taking into account the comparative negligence of private respondent Dionisio on one hand and petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix upon the other hand, 17 we believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio. Thus, 20% of the damages awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the award of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P4,500.00 as attorney's fees and costs, shall be borne by private respondent Dionisio; only the balance of 80% needs to be paid by petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix who shall be solidarity liable therefor to the former. The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees and costs shall be borne exclusively by the petitioners. Phoenix is of course entitled to reimbursement from Carbonel. 18 We see no sufficient reason for disturbing the reduced award of damages made by the respondent appellate court.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent appellate court is modified by reducing the aggregate amount of compensatory damages, loss of expected income and moral damages private respondent Dionisio is entitled to by 20% of such amount. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.

Footnotes

1 TSN, 16 March 1978, pp. 25-26.

2 TSN, 16 March 1978, p. 13.

3 TSN, 23 February 1977, pp. 13-14; TSN, 7 October 1977, pp. 24-25.

4 Rule 130, Section 38,

5 Rules of Court. Rule 130, Section 36, Rules of Court.

6 People v. Berame, 72 SCRA 184 [1976]; McCormick on Evidence, Section 297 [3rd ed., 1984].

7 TSN, 16 March 1978, pp. 18-19.

8 Compare Wright v. Manila Railroad Co., 28 Phil. 116 (1914), where it was held, among others, that "[m]ere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence. " Id, at 125.

9 The Law on Torts [5th ed. 1984], pp. 277-278; emphasis supplied; footnotes omitted.

10 Ibid., pp. 303-305; emphasis supplied; footnotes omitted.

11 37 Phil. 809 (1918).

12 Prosser & Keeton, supra note 9, p. 464 and note 11.

13 See Rakes v. Manila Railroad Co., 7 Phil. 359, at 370 (1907).

14 MacIntyre The Rationale of Last Clear Chance, 53 Harv. L. Rev. 1225 (1940) and James Last Clear Chance: A Transitional Doctrine, 47 Yale L.J. 704 (1938).

15 See Rakes, 7 Phil. at 374.

16 Poblete v. Fabros, 93 SCRA 202 (1979); Umali v. Bacani, 69 SCRA 263 (1976); and Saludares v. Martinez, 29 SCRA 745 (1969).

17 See Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359, 370375 (1907), where the Court allocated the damages on a 50-50 basis between plaintiff and defendant applying the notion of comparative negligence or proportional damages. Cf. Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., 16 Phil. 8 at 29 (1910).

18 Lanuzo v. Ping, 100 SCRA 205 (1980).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-57079 September 29, 1989

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ANTONIO ESTEBAN and GLORIA ESTEBAN, respondents.

 

REGALADO, J.:

This case had its inception in an action for damages instituted in the former Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental 1 by private respondent spouses against petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT, for brevity) for the injuries they sustained in the evening of July 30, 1968 when their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. The complaint alleged that respondent Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of any warning light or signs. As a result of the accident, respondent Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while the respondent husband suffered cut lips. In addition, the windshield of the jeep was shattered. 2

PLDT, in its answer, denies liability on the contention that the injuries sustained by respondent spouses were the result of their own negligence and that the entity which should be held responsible, if at all, is L.R. Barte and Company (Barte, for short), an independent contractor which undertook the construction of the manhole and the conduit system. 3 Accordingly, PLDT filed a third-party complaint against Barte alleging that, under the terms of their agreement, PLDT should in no manner be answerable for any accident or injuries arising from the negligence or carelessness of Barte or any of its employees. 4 In answer thereto, Barte claimed that it was not aware nor was it notified of the accident involving respondent spouses and that it had complied with the terms of its contract with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate standard signs in the vicinity of the work site, with barricades at both ends of the excavation and with red lights at night along the excavated area to warn the traveling public of the presence of excavations. 5

On October 1, 1974, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents, the decretal part of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING considerations the defendant Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company is hereby ordered (A) to pay the plaintiff Gloria Esteban the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 exemplary damages; to plaintiff Antonio Esteban the sum of P2,000.00 as moral damages and P500.00 as exemplary damages, with legal rate of interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees.

(B) The third-party defendant is hereby ordered to reimburse whatever amount the defendant-third party plaintiff has paid to the plaintiff. With costs against the defendant. 6

From this decision both PLDT and private respondents appealed, the latter appealing only as to the amount of damages. Third-party defendant Barte did not appeal.

On September 25, 1979, the Special Second Division of the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in said appealed case, with Justice Corazon Juliano Agrava as ponente, reversing the decision of the lower court and dismissing the complaint of respondent spouses. It held that respondent Esteban spouses were negligent and consequently absolved petitioner PLDT from the claim for damages. 7 A copy of this decision was received by private respondents on October 10, 1979. 8 On October 25, 1979, said respondents filed a motion for reconsideration dated October 24, 1979. 9 On January 24, 1980, the Special Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals denied said motion for reconsideration. 10 This resolution was received by respondent spouses on February 22, 1980. 11

On February 29, 1980, respondent Court of Appeals received private respondents' motion for leave of court to file a second motion for reconsideration, dated February 27, 1980. 12 On March 11, 1980, respondent court, in a resolution likewise penned by Justice Agrava, allowed respondents to file a second motion for reconsideration, within ten (10) days from notice thereof. 13 Said resolution was received by private respondents on April 1, 1980 but prior thereto, private respondents had already filed their second motion for reconsideration on March 7, 1980. 14

On April 30,1980 petitioner PLDT filed an opposition to and/or motion to dismiss said second motion for reconsideration. 15 The Court of Appeals, in view of the divergent opinions on the resolution of the second motion for reconsideration, designated two additional justices to form a division of five. 16 On September 3, 1980, said division of five promulgated its resolution, penned by Justice Mariano A. Zosa, setting aside the decision dated September 25, 1979, as well as the resolution dated, January 24,1980, and affirming in toto the decision of the lower court. 17

On September 19, 1980, petitioner PLDT filed a motion to set aside and/or for reconsideration of the resolution of September 3, 1980, contending that the second motion for reconsideration of private respondent spouses was filed out of time and that the decision of September 25, 1979 penned by Justice Agrava was already final. It further submitted therein that the relationship of Barte and petitioner PLDT should be viewed in the light of the contract between them and, under the independent contractor rule, PLDT is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor. 18 On May 11, 1981, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its resolution denying said motion to set aside and/or for reconsideration and affirming in toto the decision of the lower court dated October 1, 1974. 19

Coming to this Court on a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner assigns the following errors:

1. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not denying private respondents' second motion for reconsideration on the ground that the decision of the Special Second Division, dated September 25, 1979, and the resolution of the Special Ninth Division, dated January 24, 1980, are already final, and on the additional ground that said second motion for reconsideration is pro forma.

2. Respondent court erred in reversing the aforesaid decision and resolution and in misapplying the independent contractor rule in holding PLDT liable to respondent Esteban spouses.

A convenient resume of the relevant proceedings in the respondent court, as shown by the records and admitted by both parties, may be graphically presented as follows:

(a) September 25, 1979, a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals with Justice Agrava as ponente;

(b) October 10, 1979, a copy of said decision was received by private respondents;

(c) October 25, 1979, a motion for reconsideration was filed by private respondents;

(d) January 24, 1980, a resolution was issued denying said motion for reconsideration;

(e) February 22, 1980, a copy of said denial resolution was received by private respondents;

(f) February 29, 1980, a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration was filed by private respondents

(g) March 7, 1980, a second motion for reconsideration was filed by private respondents;

(h) March 11, 1980, a resolution was issued allowing respondents to file a second motion for reconsideration within ten (10) days from receipt; and

(i) September 3, 1980, a resolution was issued, penned by Justice Zosa, reversing the original decision dated September 25, 1979 and setting aside the resolution dated January 24, 1980.

From the foregoing chronology, we are convinced that both the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and, consequently, said second motion for reconsideration itself were filed out of time.

Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, which had procedural governance at the time, provided that a second motion for reconsideration may be presented within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order or judgment deducting the time in which the first motion has been pending. 20 Private respondents having filed their first motion for reconsideration on the last day of the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days within which to do so, they had only one (1) day from receipt of the order denying said motion to file, with leave of court, a second motion for reconsideration. 21 In the present case, after their receipt on February 22, 1980 of the resolution denying their first motion for reconsideration, private respondents had two remedial options. On February 23, 1980, the remaining one (1) day of the aforesaid reglementary period, they could have filed a motion for leave of court to file a second motion for reconsideration, conceivably with a prayer for the extension of the period within which to do so. On the other hand, they could have appealed through a petition for review on certiorari to this Court within fifteen (15) days from February 23, 1980. 22 Instead, they filed a motion for leave to file a second motion 'for reconsideration on February 29, 1980, and said second motion for reconsideration on March 7, 1980, both of which motions were by then time-barred.

Consequently, after the expiration on February 24, 1980 of the original fifteen (15) day period, the running of which was suspended during the pendency of the first motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals could no longer validly take further proceedings on the merits of the case, much less to alter, modify or reconsider its aforesaid decision and/or resolution. The filing of the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration by herein respondents on February 29, 1980 and the subsequent filing of the motion itself on March 7, 1980, after the expiration of the reglementary period to file the same, produced no legal effects. Only a motion for re-hearing or reconsideration filed in time shall stay the final order or judgment sought to be re-examined. 23

The consequential result is that the resolution of respondent court of March 11, 1980 granting private respondents' aforesaid motion for leave and, giving them an extension of ten (10) days to file a second motion for reconsideration, is null and void. The period for filing a second motion for reconsideration had already expired when private respondents sought leave to file the same, and respondent court no longer had the power to entertain or grant the said motion. The aforesaid extension of ten (10) days for private respondents to file their second motion for reconsideration was of no legal consequence since it was given when there was no more period to extend. It is an elementary rule that an application for extension of time must be filed prior to the expiration of the period

sought to be extended. 24 Necessarily, the discretion of respondent court to grant said extension for filing a second motion for reconsideration is conditioned upon the timeliness of the motion seeking the same.

No appeal having been taken seasonably, the respondent court's decision, dated September 25, 1979, became final and executory on March 9, 1980. The subsequent resolutions of respondent court, dated March 11, 1980 and September 3, 1980, allowing private respondents to file a second motion for reconsideration and reversing the original decision are null and void and cannot disturb the finality of the judgment nor restore jurisdiction to respondent court. This is but in line with the accepted rule that once a decision has become final and executory it is removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend, much less revoke it. 25 The decision rendered anew is null and void. 26 The court's inherent power to correct its own errors should be exercised before the finality of the decision or order sought to be corrected, otherwise litigation will be endless and no question could be considered finally settled. Although the granting or denial of a motion for reconsideration involves the exercise of discretion, 27 the same should not be exercised whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, but prudently in conformity with law, justice, reason and equity. 28

Prescinding from the aforesaid procedural lapses into the substantive merits of the case, we find no error in the findings of the respondent court in its original decision that the accident which befell private respondents was due to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to negligent omission on the part of petitioner PLDT. Such findings were reached after an exhaustive assessment and evaluation of the evidence on record, as evidenced by the respondent court's resolution of January 24, 1980 which we quote with approval:

First. Plaintiff's jeep was running along the inside lane of Lacson Street. If it had remained on that inside lane, it would not have hit the ACCIDENT MOUND.

Exhibit B shows, through the tiremarks, that the ACCIDENT MOUND was hit by the jeep swerving from the left that is, swerving from the inside lane. What caused the swerving is not disclosed; but, as the cause of the accident, defendant cannot be made liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs. The accident was not due to the absence of warning signs, but to the unexplained abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane. That may explain plaintiff-husband's insistence that he did not see the ACCIDENT MOUND for which reason he ran into it.

Second. That plaintiff's jeep was on the inside lane before it swerved to hit the ACCIDENT MOUND could have been corroborated by a picture showing Lacson Street to the south of the ACCIDENT MOUND.

It has been stated that the ditches along Lacson Street had already been covered except the 3 or 4 meters where the ACCIDENT MOUND was located. Exhibit B-1 shows that the ditches on Lacson Street north of the ACCIDENT MOUND had already been covered, but not in such a way as to allow the outer lane to be freely and conveniently passable to vehicles. The situation could have been worse to the south of the ACCIDENT MOUND for which reason no picture of the ACCIDENT MOUND facing south was taken.

Third. Plaintiff's jeep was not running at 25 kilometers an hour as plaintiff-husband claimed. At that speed, he could have braked the vehicle the moment it struck the ACCIDENT MOUND. The jeep would not have climbed the ACCIDENT MOUND several feet as indicated by the tiremarks in Exhibit B. The jeep must have been running quite fast. If the jeep had been braked at 25 kilometers an hour, plaintiff's would not have been thrown against the windshield and they would not have suffered their injuries.

Fourth. If the accident did not happen because the jeep was running quite fast on the inside lane and for some reason or other it had to swerve suddenly to the right and had to climb over the ACCIDENT MOUND, then plaintiff-husband had not exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the accident. With the drizzle, he should not have run on dim lights, but should have put on his regular lights which should have made him see the ACCIDENT MOUND in time. If he was running on the outside lane at 25 kilometers an hour, even on dim lights, his failure to see the ACCIDENT MOUND in time to brake the car was negligence on his part. The ACCIDENT MOUND was relatively big and visible, being 2 to 3 feet high and 1-1/2 feet wide. If he did not see the ACCIDENT MOUND in time, he would not have seen any warning sign either. He knew of the existence and location of the ACCIDENT MOUND, having seen it many previous times. With ordinary precaution, he should have driven his jeep on the night of the accident so as to avoid hitting the ACCIDENT MOUND. 29

The above findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. 30 The perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and assumed by, private respondents. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some alleged negligence on the part of petitioner.

The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. The private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound. As opined in some quarters, the omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury. 31 It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm and necessity that one should exercise a reasonable degree of caution for his own protection. Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the

excavations there. It was his negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.

Moreover, we also sustain the findings of respondent Court of Appeals in its original decision that there was insufficient evidence to prove any negligence on the part of PLDT. We have for consideration only the self-serving testimony of respondent Antonio Esteban and the unverified photograph of merely a portion of the scene of the accident. The absence of a police report of the incident and the non-submission of a medical report from the hospital where private respondents were allegedly treated have not even been satisfactorily explained.

As aptly observed by respondent court in its aforecited extended resolution of January 24, 1980 —

(a) There was no third party eyewitness of the accident. As to how the accident occurred, the Court can only rely on the testimonial evidence of plaintiffs themselves, and such evidence should be very carefully evaluated, with defendant, as the party being charged, being given the benefit of any doubt. Definitely without ascribing the same motivation to plaintiffs, another person could have deliberately engineered a similar accident in the hope and expectation that the Court can grant him substantial moral and exemplary damages from the big corporation that defendant is. The statement is made only to stress the disadvantageous position of defendant which would have extreme difficulty in contesting such person's claim. If there were no witness or record available from the police department of Bacolod, defendant would not be able to determine for itself which of the conflicting testimonies of plaintiffs is correct as to the report or non-report of the accident to the police department. 32

A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. 33 Whosoever relies on negligence for his cause of action has the burden in the first instance of proving the existence of the same if contested, otherwise his action must fail.

WHEREFORE, the resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals, dated March 11, 1980 and September 3,1980, are hereby SET ASIDE. Its original decision, promulgated on September 25,1979, is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

1 Civil Case No. 8681, Judge Ernesto Tengco, presiding.

2 Rollo, 49-51.

3 Ibid., 52-55.

4 Ibid., 56-58.

5 Ibid., 59-61.

6 Ibid., 70.

7 CA-G.R. No. 57352-R, Justices Jose B. Jimenez and Benjamin K. Gorospe concurred. Rollo, 72-79.

8 Rollo, 21,156.

9 Ibid., 80-85, 156.

10 Ibid., 93-98.

11 Ibid., 21,158.

12 Rollo, CA-G.R. No. 57352-R, 141-143.

13 Ibid., Id., 155-156.

14 Ibid., Id., 144-153.

15 Ibid., Id., 168-171.

16 Ibid., Id., 185-196.

17 Rollo, 111-118.

18 Ibid., 119-120.

19 Ibid., 137-138.

20 The rule has since been modified by Sec. 11, B.P. 129, effective August 14,1981, which provided that in the then Intermediate Appellate Court a second motion for reconsideration would be allowed only if the first motion for reconsideration resulted in the reversal or substantial modification of the original decision or final resolution. Thereafter, effective July 28,1986, Sec. 11 of B.P. 129 was amended by Sec. 6 of Executive Order No. 33 providing that in the present Court of Appeals no second motion for reconsideration from the same party shall be entertained.

21 In the computation of the reglementary period, especially if it is interrupted by the filing of a pleading, the date when the pleading is filed and the date of receipt of the judgment or order thereon are to be excluded (Lloren, etc. vs. De Veyra, etc., et al., 4 SCRA 637 [1962]; De las Alas, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 83 SCRA 200 [1978]).

22 Sec. 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court; Serrano vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 139 SCRA 179 (1985).

23 Sec. 3, Rule 52, Rules of Court.

24 Galima, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 16 SCRA 140 (1966); Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 43 SCRA 664 (1972),

25 Comia, et al. vs. Nicolas, etc., et al., 29 SCRA 492 (l969).

26 Heirs of Patriaca, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 124 SCRA 410 (1983).

27 Lucero vs. Dacayo, etc., et al., 22 SCRA 1004 (1963).

28 Gardner, et al. vs. Court of Appeals. et al., 131 SCRA 585 (1984).

29 Rollo, 97-98.

30 Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359 (1907).

31 Sangco, Torts & Damages, 1978 Rev. Ed., 150.

32 Rollo, 95.

33 Barcelo, etc. vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co., 29 Phil.351 (1951); Sec. 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court; 1 Jones on Evidence, 5th Ed., 370.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 73998 November 14, 1988

PEDRO T. LAYUGAN, petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, GODOFREDO ISIDRO, and TRAVELLERS MULTI-INDEMNITY CORPORATION, respondents.

Edralin S. Mateo for petitioner.

Orlando L. Espinas for respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corp.

Roberto T. Vallarta for respondent Godofredo Isidro.

 

SARMIENTO, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are 1) the decision 1 of the then Intermediate Appellate Court 2 in AC-G.R. CV No. 01055, entitled "Pedro T. Layugan, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Godofredo Isidro, Defendant-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation, Third Party Defendant- Appellant, "which reversed and set aside the decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch XXVI, Cabanatuan City, and also dismissed the complaint, third party complaint, and the counter claims of the parties and 2) the resolution 4 denying the plaintiff-appellee's (herein petitioner) motion for reconsideration, for lack of merit.

The findings of fact by the trial court which were adopted by the appellate court are as follows: 5

xxx xxx xxx

Pedro T. Layugan filed an action for damages against Godofredo Isidro, alleging that on May 15, 1979 while at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, the Plaintiff and a companion were repairing the tire of their cargo truck with Plate No. SU-730 which was parked along the right side of the National Highway; that defendant's truck bearing Plate No. PW-583, driven recklessly by Daniel Serrano bumped the plaintiff, that as a result, plaintiff was injured and hospitalized at Dr. Paulino J. Garcia Research and Medical Center and the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital; that he spent TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Pl0,000.00) and will incur more expenses as he recuperates from said injuries; that because of said injuries he would be deprived of a lifetime income in the sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P70,000.00); and that he agreed to pay his lawyer the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Pl0,000.00).

As prayed for by the plaintiffs counsel, the Court declared the defendant in default on October 12, 1979, and plaintiff's evidence was received ex-parte on January 11, 1978 and February 19, 1980. The decision on behalf of the plaintiff was set aside to give a chance to the defendant to file his answer and later on, a third-party complaint.

Defendant admitted his ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident driven by Daniel Serrano. Defendant countered that the plaintiff was merely a bystander, not a truck helper being a brother-in-law law of the driver of said truck; that the truck allegedly being repaired was parked, occupying almost half of the right lane towards Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, right after the curve; that the proximate cause of the incident was the failure of the driver of the parked truck in installing the early warning device, hence the driver of the parked car should be liable for damages sustained by the truck of the herein defendant in the amount of more than P20,000.00; that plaintiff being a mere bystander and hitchhiker must suffer all the damages he incurred. By way of counterclaim defendant alleged that due to plaintiffs baseless complaint he was constrained to engage the services of counsel for P5,000.00 and P200.00 per court appearance; that he suffered sleepless nights, humiliation, wounded feelings which may be estimated at P30.000.00.

On May 29, 1981, a third-party complaint was filed by the defendant against his insurer, the Travellers Multi Indemnity Corporation; that the third-party plaintiff, without admitting his liability to the plaintiff, claimed that the third-party defendant is liable to the former for contribution, indemnity and subrogation by virtue of their contract under Insurance Policy No. 11723 which covers the insurer's liability for damages arising from death, bodily injuries and damage to property.

Third-party defendant answered that, even assuming that the subject matter of the complaint is covered by a valid and existing insurance policy, its liability shall in no case exceed the limit defined under the terms and conditions stated therein; that the complaint is premature as no claim has been submitted to the third party defendant as prescribed under the Insurance Code; that the accident in question was approximately caused by the carelessness and gross negligence of the plaintiff-, that by reason of the third-party complaint, third-party defendant was constrained to engage the services of counsel for a fee of P3,000.00.

Pedro Layugan declared that he is a married man with one (1) child. He was employed as security guard in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, with a salary of SIX HUNDRED PESOS (600.00) a month. When he is off-duty, he worked as a truck helper and while working as such, he sustained injuries as a result of the bumping of the cargo truck they were repairing at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya by the driver of the defendant. He used to earn TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) to THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300.00) monthly, at the rate of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (Pl00.00) per trip. Due to said injuries, his left leg was amputated so he had to use crutches to walk. Prior to the incident, he supported his family sufficiently, but after getting injured, his family is now being supported by his parents and brother.

GODOFREDO ISIDRO, defendant/third-party plaintiff, testified that his truck involved in this vehicular accident is insured with the Travellers Multi Indemnity Corporation covering own damage and third-party liability, under

vehicle policy No. 11723 (Exh. "1") dated May 30, 1978; that after he filed the insurance claim the insurance company paid him the sum of P18,000.00 for the damages sustained by this truck but not the third party liability.

DANIEL SERRANO, defendant driver, declared that he gave a statement before the municipal police of Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya on May 16, 1979; that he knew the responsibilities of a driver; that before leaving, he checked the truck. The truck owner used to instruct him to be careful in driving. He bumped the truck being repaired by Pedro Layugan, plaintiff, while the same was at a stop position. From the evidence presented, it has been established clearly that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was caused by defendant's driver, Daniel Serrano. The police report confirmed the allegation of the plaintiff and admitted by Daniel Serrano on cross-examination. The collision dislodged the jack from the parked truck and pinned the plaintiff to the ground. As a result thereof, plaintiff sustained injuries on his left forearm and left foot. The left leg of the plaintiff from below the knee was later on amputated (Exh. "C") when gangrene had set in, thereby rendering him incapacitated for work depriving him of his income. (pp. 118 to 120, Record on Appeal.)

xxx xxx xxx

Upon such findings, amply supported by the evidence on record, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: 6

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendant is hereby ordered:

a) To pay the plaintiff SEVENTY THOUSAND (P70,000.00) PESOS actual and compensatory damages;

b) TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS for attorney's fees;

c) FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS for moral damages; and

d) To pay the costs of this suit. On the third-party complaint, the third-party defendant is ordered to indemnify the defendant/third party plaintiff-.

a) The sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for actual and compensatory damages; and

b) The costs of this suit.

The Intermediate Appellate Court as earlier stated reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint, the third-party complaint, and the counter- claims of both appellants. 7

Hence, this petition.

The petitioner alleges the following errors. 8

1. WHETHER UPON THE GIVEN FACTS, THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE AND DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT.

2. WHETHER THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF "RES IPSA LOQUITUR" WITH PROPER JURIS- PRUDENTIAL (sic) BASIS.

The crux of the controversy lies in the correctness or error of the decision of the respondent court finding the petitioner negligent under the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).<äre||anº•1àw> Corollary thereto, is the question as to who is negligent, if the doctrine is inapplicable.

The respondent corporation stresses that the issues raised in the petition being factual, the same is not reviewable by this Court in a petition for review by certiorari. 9

Indeed, it is an elementary rule in the review of decisions of the Court of Appeals that its findings of fact are entitled to great respect and will not ordinarily be disturbed by this Court. 10 For if we have to review every question of fact elevated to us, we would hardly have any more time left for the weightier issues compelling and deserving our preferential attention. 11 Be that as it may, this rule is not inflexible. Surely there are established exceptions 12 —when the Court should review and rectify the findings of fact of the lower court, such as:

1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, or conjecture; 2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; 5) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case if the findings are contrary to the admission of both the appellant and the appellee; 6) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; 7) the said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 8) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and 9) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted on record.

Exceptions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 obtain in the instant case to warrant a deviation from the general rule.

From its finding that the parked truck was loaded with ten (10) big round logs 13 the Court of Appeals inferred that because of its weight the truck could not have been driven to the shoulder of the road and concluded that the same was parked on a portion of the road 14 at the time of the accident. Consequently, the respondent court inferred that the mishap was due to the negligence of the driver of the parked truck. 15 The inference or conclusion is manifestly erroneous. In a large measure, it is grounded on speculation, surmise, or conjecture. How the respondent court could have reversed the finding of the trial court that a warning device was installed 16 escapes us because it is evident from the record that really such a device, in the form of a lighted kerosene lamp, was installed by the driver of the parked truck three to four meters from the rear of his parked truck. 17 We see this negative finding of the respondent appellate court as a misreading of the facts and the evidence on record and directly contravening the positive finding of the trial court that an early warning device was in proper place when the accident happened and that the driver of the private respondent was the one negligent. On the other hand, the respondent court, in refusing to give its "imprimatur to the trial court's finding and conclusion that Daniel Serrano (private respondent Isidro's driver) was negligent in driving the truck that bumped the parked truck", did not cite specific evidence to support its conclusion. In cavalier fashion, it simply and nebulously adverted to unspecified "scanty evidence on record." 18

On the technical aspect of the case, the respondent corporation would want us to dismiss this petition on the ground that it was filed out of time. It must be noted that there was a motion for extension, 19 albeit filed erroneously with the respondent court, dated March 19, 1986, requesting for 30 days from March 20, 1986, to file the necessary petition or pleading before the Supreme Court". Also, on April 1, 1986, an appearance of a new lawyer for the petitioner before the Supreme Court" with motion 20 was filed, again erroneously, with the Court of Appeals, requesting for 20 days extension "to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari." Likewise a similar motion 21 was filed with this Court also on April 1, 1986. On the other hand, the instant petition for review was filed on April 17, 1986 22 but it was only after three months, on August 1, 1986, in its comment 23 that the respondent corporation raised the issue of tardiness. The respondent corporation should not have waited in ambush before the comment was required and before due course was given. In any event, to exact its "a pound of flesh", so to speak, at this very late stage, would cause a grave miscarriage of justice. Parenthetically, it must be noted that private respondent Isidro did not raise this issue of late filing.

We now come to the merits of this petition.

The question before us is who was negligent? Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do 24 or as Judge Cooley defines it, "(T)he failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. 25

In Picart vs. Smith, 26 decided more than seventy years ago but still a sound rule, we held:

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The Law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

Respondent Isidro posits that any immobile object along the highway, like a parked truck, poses serious danger to a moving vehicle which has the right to be on the highway. He argues that since the parked cargo truck in this case was a threat to life and limb and property, it was incumbent upon the driver as well as the petitioner, who claims to be a helper of the truck driver, to exercise extreme care so that the motorist negotiating the road would be properly forewarned of the peril of a parked vehicle. Isidro submits that the burden of proving that care and diligence were observed is shifted to the petitioner, for, as previously claimed, his (Isidro's) Isuzu truck had a right to be on the road, while the immobile cargo truck had no business, so to speak, to be there. Likewise, Isidro proffers that the petitioner must show to the satisfaction of a reasonable mind that the driver and he (petitioner) himself, provided an early warning device, like that required by law, or, by some other adequate means that would properly forewarn vehicles of the impending danger that the parked vehicle posed considering the time, place, and other peculiar circumstances of the occasion. Absent such proof of care, as in the case at bar, Isidro concludes, would, under the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, evoke the presumption of negligence on the part of the driver of the parked cargo truck as well as his helper, the petitioner herein, who was fixing the flat tire of the said truck. 27

Respondent Isidro's contention is untenable.

The evidence on record discloses that three or four meters from the rear of the parked truck, a lighted kerosene lamp was placed. 28 Moreover, there is the admission of respondent Isidro's driver, Daniel Serrano, to Wit: 29

Question No. 8 (by Patrolman Josefino Velasco)—Will you narrate to me in brief how the accident happens (sic) if you can still remember?

Answer: (by Daniel Serrano)

That on or about 10:40 p.m., 15 May 1979 while driving Isuzu truck at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya and at KM 285, I met another vehicle who (sic) did not dim his (sic) lights which cause (sic) me to be blinded with intense glare of the light that's why I did not notice a parked truck who (sic) was repairing a front flat tire. When I was a few meters away, I saw the truck which was loaded with round logs. I step (sic) on my foot brakes but it did not

function with my many attempts. I have (sic) found out later that the fluid pipe on the rear right was cut that's why the breaks did not function. (Emphasis supplied).

Whether the cargo truck was parked along the road or on half the shoulder of the right side of the road would be of no moment taking into account the warning device consisting of the lighted kerosene lamp placed three or four meters from the back of the truck. 30 But despite this warning which we rule as sufficient, the Isuzu truck driven by Daniel Serrano, an employee of the private respondent, still bumped the rear of the parked cargo truck. As a direct consequence of such accident the petitioner sustained injuries on his left forearm and left foot. His left leg was later amputated from below the knee when gangrene had set in. 31

It is clear from the foregoing disquisition that the absence or want of care of Daniel Serrano has been established by clear and convincing evidence. It follows that in stamping its imprimatur upon the invocation by respondent Isidro of the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur to escape liability for the negligence of his employee, the respondent court committed reversible error.

The respondent court ruled: 32

xxx xxx xxx

In addition to this, we agree with the following arguments of appellant Godofredo Isidro which would show that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the cargo truck:

xxx xxx xxx

... In the case at bar the burden of proving that care and diligence was (sic) observed is shifted evidently to the plaintiff, for, as adverted to, the motorists have the right to be on the road, while the immobile truck has no business, so to speak, to be there. It is thus for the plaintiff to show to the satisfaction of a reasonable mind that the driver and he himself did employ early warning device such as that required by law or by some other adequate means or device that would properly forewarn vehicles of the impending danger that the parked vehicle posed considering the time, place and other peculiar circumstances of the occasion. Absent such proof of care, as in the case at bar, will evoke the presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, on the part of the driver of the parked cargo truck as well as plaintiff who was fixing the flat tire of said truck. (pp. 14-17, Appellant's Brief). (Emphasis supplied).

At this juncture, it may be enlightening and helpful in the proper resolution of the issue of negligence to examine the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur.

This doctrine is stated thus: "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. 33 Or as Black's Law Dictionary 34 puts it:

Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere fact that accident happened provided character of accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under management and control of alleged wrongdoer. Hillen v. Hooker Const. Co., Tex. Civ. App., 484 S.W. 2d 133, 155. Under doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" the happening of an injury permits an inference of negligence where plaintiff produces substantial evidence that injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality under exclusive control and management of defendant, and that the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used.

In this jurisdiction we have applied this doctrine in quite a number of cases, notably in Africa et al. vs. Caltex, Inc., et al., 35 and the latest is in the case of F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. vs. CA. 36

The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. 37 The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law 38 but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. 39 The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, is not intended to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the part of the party charged. 40 It merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care. 41 The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. 42 Hence, it has generally been held that the presumption of inference arising from the doctrine cannot be availed of, or is overcome, where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of or where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly appear. 43 Finally, once the actual cause of injury is established beyond controversy, whether by the plaintiff or by the defendant, no presumptions will be involved and the doctrine becomes inapplicable when the circumstances have been so completely eludicated that no inference of defendant's liability can reasonably be made, whatever the source of the evidence, 44 as in this case.

The private respondent is sued under Art. 2176 in relation to Art. 2180, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code. In the latter, when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection, or both. Such presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure and consequently, may be rebutted. If follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and in the supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability. 45 In disclaiming liability for the incident, the private respondent stresses that the negligence of his employee has already been adequately overcome by his driver's statement that he knew his responsibilities as a driver and that the truck owner used to instruct him to be careful in driving. 46

We do not agree with the private respondent in his submission. In the first place, it is clear that the driver did not know his responsibilities because he apparently did not check his vehicle before he took it on the road. If he did he could have discovered earlier that the brake fluid pipe on the right was cut, and could have repaired it and thus the accident could have been avoided. Moveover, to our mind, the fact that the private respondent used to intruct his driver to be careful in his driving, that the driver was licensed, and the fact that he had no record of any accident, as found by the respondent court, are not sufficient to destroy the finding of negligence of the Regional Trial Court given the facts established at the trial 47 The private respondent or his mechanic, who must be competent, should have conducted a thorough inspection of his vehicle before allowing his driver to drive it. In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case, we hold that Isidro failed to prove that the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of his employees which would exculpate him from solidary liability with his driver to the petitioner. But even if we concede that the diligence of a good father of a family was observed by Isidro in the supervision of his driver, there is not an iota of evidence on record of the observance by Isidro of the same quantum of diligence in the supervision of his mechanic, if any, who would be directly in charge in maintaining the road worthiness of his (Isidro's) truck. But that is not all. There is paucity of proof that Isidro exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of his driver, Daniel Serrano, as well as in the selection of his mechanic, if any, in order to insure the safe operation of his truck and thus prevent damage to others. Accordingly, the responsibility of Isidro as employer treated in Article 2180, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code has not ceased.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the respondent court as well as its Resolution denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration are hereby SET ASIDE and the decision of the trial court, dated January 20, 1983, is hereby REINSTATED in toto. With costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

1 Veloso, Marcelino R., ponente; Sison, Porfirio V., Bidin, Abdulwahid A., and Britanico, Ramon B., JJ., concurring.

2 Fourth Civil Cases Division.

3 Rendered by Judge Leticia P. Morales.

4 Veloso, Mercelino R., J., ponente; Sison, Porfirio V. Bidin, Abdulwahid A., and Britanico, Ramon B., JJ., concurring.

5 Decision of IAC, Rollo, 46-49.

6 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Rollo, 32.

7 Ibid., p. 52.

8 Petition, Rollo, pp. 8-9.

9 Rollo, 108.

10 The Executive Secretary, et al. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-37999, June 10, 1988, citing Chan vs. CA, G.R. No. L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737; Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-37783, January 28,1988.

11 Anderson Co., et al. vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-65928, June 21, 1988.

12 Director of Lands vs. CA, G.R. No. L-46068, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 346, citing Macadangdang vs. CA No. L-49542, September 12, 1980, 100 SCRA 73; Manero vs. CA G.R. No. L-49824, February 20, 1981; 102 SCRA 817; Pio L. Padilla vs, C.A., January 29, 1988; G.R. 75577, January 29, 1988; Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. IAC, G.R. L-72126, January 29, 1988.

13 Decision, Court of Appeals, 50.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Petition, 13.

18 Decision, CA, 50.

19 Annex K, 59.

20 Annex M, 62.

21 Motion for Extension, 2.

22 Petition, 4.

23 Comment, 65.

24 Black Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 930.

25 Cooley on Torts, Fourth Edition, Vol. 3, 265.

26 37 Phil. 809, 813, No. L-12219, March 15, 1918; Hedy Gan vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. L-44264, September 19, 1988.

27 Memorandum of Private Respondent, 2-3.

28 Rollo, 13.

29 Id., 11, quoting the police investigation report by Patrolman Josefino Velasco at about 10:00 a.m., on May 16, 1979, the morning after the accident, of the statement of Daniel Serrano, the driver of respondent Isidro.

30 Petition, Rollo, 13.

31 Decision, RTC, Rollo, 13.

32 Decision, IAC, Rollo, 50-51, 52.

33 Cooley on Torts, Vol. 3. 369.

34 Fifth Edition, 1173.

35 L-12986, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 448.

36 L-52732, August 29, 1988.

37 Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 65A, 525.

38 Id., 527.

39 Id., 529.

40 Id 529-530.

41 Id., 530.

42 Id., 543-544.

43 Id., 544-545.

44 Id., 548.

45 Bahia vs. Litonpia and Leynes, No. L-9734, March 31, 1915, 30 Phils. 624.

46 Memorandum of private respondent, 6.

47 Decision, IAC, Rollo, 52.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

 

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8328.  May 18, 1956.]

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. SOTERO REMOQUILLO, in his own behalf and as guardian of the minors MANUEL, BENJAMIN, NESTOR, MILAGROS, CORAZON, CLEMENTE and AURORA, all surnamed MAGNO, SALUD MAGNO,

and the COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

On August 22, 1950, Efren Magno went to the 3-story house of Antonio Peñaloza, his stepbrother, located on Rodriguez Lanuza Street, Manila, to repair a “media agua” said to be in a leaking condition. The “media agua” was just below the window of the third story. Standing on said “media agua”, Magno received from his son thru that window a 3’ X 6’ galvanized iron sheet to cover the leaking portion, turned around and in doing so the lower end of the iron sheet came into contact with the electric wire of the Manila Electric Company (later referred to as the Company) strung parallel to the edge of the “media agua” and 2 1/2 feet from it, causing his death by electrocution. His widow and children fled suit to recover damages from the company. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in their favor — P10,000 as compensatory damages; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryP784 as actual damages; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryP2,000 as moral and exemplary damages; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand P3,000 as attorney’s fees, with costs. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter affirmed the judgment with slight modification by reducing the attorney’s fees from P3,000 to P1,000 with costs. The electric company has appealed said decision to us.

The findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals which are conclusive are stated in the following portions of its decision which we reproduce below:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“The electric wire in question was an exposed, uninsulated primary wire stretched between poles on the street and carrying a charge of 3,600 volts. It was installed there some two years before Peñaloza’s house was constructed. The record shows that during the construction of said house a similar incident took place, although fortunate]y with much less tragic consequences. A piece of wood which a carpenter was holding happened to come in contact with the same wire, producing some sparks. The owner of the house forthwith complained to Defendant about the danger which the wire presented, and as a result Defendant moved one end of the wire farther from the house by means of a brace, but left the other end where it was.

“At any rate, as revealed by the ocular inspection of the premises ordered by the trial court, the distance from the electric wire to the edge of the ‘media agua’ on which the deceased was making repairs was only 30 inches or 2 1/2 feet. Regulations of the City of Manila required that ‘all wires be kept three feet from the building.’ Appellant contends that in applying said regulations to the case at bar the reckoning should not be from the edge of the ‘media agua’ but from the side of the house and that, thus measured, the distance was almost 7 feet, or more then the minimum prescribed. This contention is manifestly groundless, for not only is a ‘media agua’ an integral part of the building to which it is attached but to exclude it in measuring the distance would defeat the purpose of the regulation. Appellant points out, nevertheless, that even assuming that the distance, within the meaning of the city regulations, should be measured from the edge of the ‘media agua’, the fact that in the case of the house involved herein such distance was actually less than 3 feet was due to the fault of the owner of said house, because the city authorities gave him a permit to construct a ‘media agua’ only one meter or 39 1/2 inches wide, but instead he built one having a width of 65 3/4 inches, 17 3/8 inches more than the width permitted by the authorities, thereby reducing the distance to the electric wire to less than the prescribed minimum of 3 feet.

“It is a fact that the owner of the house exceeded the limit fixed in the permit given to him by the city authorities for the construction of the ‘media agua’, and that if he had not done so Appellants wire would have been 11 3/8 (inches) more than the required distance of three feet from the edge of the ‘media agua’. It is also a fact, however, that after the ‘media agua’ was constructed the owner was given a final permit of occupancy of the house cralaw .

“ cralaw The wire was an exposed, high tension wire carrying a load of 3,600 volts. There was, according to Appellant, no insulation that could have rendered it safe, first, because there is no insulation material in commercial use for such kind of wire; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand secondly, because the only insulation material that may be effective is still in the experimental stage of development and, anyway, its costs would be prohibitive… ”

The theory followed by the appellate court in finding for the Plaintiff is that although the owner of the house in constructing the “media agua” in question exceeded the limits fixed in the permit, still, after making that “media agua”, its construction though illegal, was finally approved because he was given a final permit to occupy the house; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat it was the company that was at fault and was guilty of negligence because although the electric wire in question had been installed long before the construction of the house and in accordance with the ordinance fixing a minimum of 3 feet, mere compliance with the regulations does not satisfy the requirement of due diligence nor avoid the need for adopting such other precautionary measures as may be warranted; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat negligence cannot be determined by a simple matter of inches; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat all that the city did was to prescribe certain minimum conditions and that just because the ordinance required that primary electric wires should be not less than 3 feet from any house, the obligation of due diligence is not fulfilled by placing such wires at a distance of 3 feet and one inch, regardless of other factors. The appellate court, however, refrained from stating or suggesting what other precautionary measures could and should have been adopted.

After a careful study and discussion of the case and the circumstances surrounding the same, we are inclined to agree to the contention of Petitioner Company that the death of Magno was primarily caused by his own negligence and in some measure by the too close proximity of the “media agua” or rather its edge to the electric wire of the company by reason of the violation of the original permit given by the city and the subsequent approval of said illegal construction of the “media agua”. We fail to see how the Company could be held guilty of negligence or as lacking in due diligence. Although the city ordinance called for a distance of 3 feet of its wires from any building, there was actually a distance of 7 feet and 2 3/4 inches of the wires from the side of the house of Peñaloza. Even considering said regulation distance of 3 feet as referring not to the side of a building, but to any projecting part thereof, such as a “media agua”, had the house owner followed the terms of the permit given him by the city for the construction of his “media agua”, namely, one meter or 39 3/8 inches wide, the distance from the wires to the edge of said “media agua” would have been 3 feet and 11 3/8 inches. In fixing said one meter width for the “media agua” the city authorities must have wanted to preserve the distance of at least 3 feet between the wires and any portion of a building. Unfortunately, however, the house owner disregarding the permit, exceeded the one meter fixed by the same by 17 3/8 inches and leaving only a distance of 2 1/2 feet between the “Media agua” as illegally constructed and the electric wires. And added to this violation of the permit by the house owner, was its approval by the city through its agent, possibly an inspector. Surely we cannot lay these serious violations of a city ordinance and permit at the door of the Company, guiltless of breach of any ordinance or regulation. The Company cannot be expected to be always on the lookout for any illegal construction which reduces the distance between its wires and said construction, and after finding that said distance of 3 feet had been reduced, to change the stringing or installation of its wires so as to preserve said distance. It would be much easier for the City, or rather it is its duty, to be ever on the alert and to see to it that its ordinances are strictly followed by house owners and to condemn or disapprove all illegal constructions. Of course, in the present case, the violation of the permit for the construction of the “media agua” was not the direct cause of the accident. It merely contributed to it. Had said “media agua” been only one meter wide as allowed by the permit, Magno standing on it, would instinctively have stayed closer to or hugged the side of the house in order to keep a safe margin between the edge of the “media agua” and the yawning 2-story distance or height from the ground, and possibly if not probably avoided the fatal contact between the lower end of the iron sheet and the wires.

We realize that the presence of the wires in question quite close to the house or its “media agua” was always a source of danger considering their high voltage and uninsulated as they were, but the claim of the company and the reasons given by it for not insulating said wires were unrefuted as we gather from the findings of the Court of Appeals, and so we have to accept them as satisfactory. Consequently, we may not hold said company as guilty of negligence or wanting in due diligence in failing to insulate said wires. As to their proximity to the house it is to be supposed that distance of 3 feet was considered sufficiently safe by the technical men of the city such as its electrician or engineer. Of course, a greater distance of say 6 feet or 12 feet would have increased the margin of safety but other factors had to be considered such as that the wires could not be strung or the posts supporting them could not be located too far toward the middle of the street. Thus, the real cause of the accident or death was the reckless or negligent act of Magno himself. When he was called by his stepbrother to repair the “media agua” just below the third story window, it is to be presumed that due to his age and experience he was qualified to do so. Perhaps he was a tinsmith or carpenter and had training and experience for the job. So, he could not have been entirely a stranger to electric wires and the danger lurking in them. But unfortunately, in the instant care, his training and experience failed him, and forgetting where he was standing, holding the 6-feet iron sheet with both hands and at arms length, evidently without looking, and throwing all prudence and discretion to the winds, he turned around swinging his arms with the motion of his body, thereby causing his own electrocution.

In support of its theory and holding that Defendant-Appellant was liable for damages the Court of Appeals cites the case of Astudillo vs. Manila Electric Co., 55 Phil., 427. We do not think the case is exactly applicable. There, the premises involved was that elevated portion or top of the walls of Intramuros, Manila, just above the Sta. Lucia Gate. In the words of the Court, it was “a public place where persons come to stroll, to rest and to enjoy themselves”. The electric company was clearly negligent in placing its wires so near the place that without much difficulty or exertion, a person by stretching his hand out could touch them. A boy named Astudillo, placing one foot on a projection, reached out and actually grasped the electric wire and was electrocuted. The person electrocuted in said case was a boy who was in no position to realize the danger. In the present case, however, the wires were well high over the street where there was no possible danger to pedestrians. The only possible danger was to persons standing on the “media agua”, but a “media agua” can hardly be considered a public place where persons usually gather. Moreover, a person standing on the “media agua” could not have reached the wires with his hands alone. It was necessary as was done by Magno to hold something long enough to reach the wire. Furthermore, Magno was not a boy or a person immature but the father of a family, supposedly a tinsmith trained and experienced in the repair of galvanized iron roofs and “media agua”. Moreover, in that very case of Astudillo vs. Manila Electric Co., supra, the court said that although it is a well- established rule that the liability of electric companies for damages or personal injuries is governed by the rules of negligence, nevertheless such companies are not insurers of the safety of the public.

But even assuming for a moment that under the facts of the present case the Defendant electric company could be considered negligent in installing its electric wires so close to the house and “media agua” in question, and in failing to properly insulate those wires (although according to the unrefuted claim of said company it was impossible to make the insulation of that kind of wire), nevertheless to hold the Defendant liable in damages for the death of Magno, such supposed negligence of the company must have been the proximate and principal cause of the accident, because if the act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet with his hands was the proximate and principal cause of the electrocution, then his heirs may not recover. Such was the holding of this Court in the case of Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, 16 Phil., 8. In that case, the electric company was found negligent in leaving scattered on its premises fulminating caps which Taylor, a 15- year old boy found and carried home. In the course of experimenting with said fulminating caps, he opened one of them, held it out with his hands while another boy applied a lighted match to it, causing it to explode and injure one of his eyes eventually causing blindness in said eye. Said this Tribunal in denying recovery for the injury:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ cralaw, so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the negligent act of the Defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises, nevertheless Plaintiff’s own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident which inflicted the injury.”

To us it is clear that the principal and proximate cause of the electrocution was not the electric wire, evidently a remote cause, but rather the reckless and negligent act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution, such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its contacting said iron sheet, considering the latter’s length of 6 feet. For a better understanding of the rule on remote and proximate cause with respect to injuries, we find the following citation helpful:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.” (45 C.J. pp. 931-332.).

We realize that the stringing of wires of such high voltage (3,600 volts), uninsulated and so close to houses is a constant source of danger, even death, especially to persons who having occasion to be near said wires, do not adopt the necessary precautions. But may be, the City of Manila authorities and the electric company could get together and devise means of minimizing this danger to the public. Just as the establishment of pedestrian lanes in city thoroughfares may greatly minimize danger to pedestrians because drivers of motor vehicles may expect danger and slow down or even stop and take other necessary precaution upon approaching said lanes, so, a similar way may possibly be found. Since these high voltage wires cannot be properly insulated and at reasonable cost, they might perhaps be strung only up to the outskirts of the city where there are few houses and few pedestrians and there step-down to a voltage where the wires carrying the same to the city could be properly insulated for the better protection of the public.

In view of all the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the complaint filed against the Company is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.