Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

An electric cooperative is solely liable for a fatal electrocution where it grossly negligently maintained uninsulated electrical connections below the prescribed vertical clearance, as a third party's act of parking a vehicle that subsequently touched the wire is not an independent negligent act but a foreseeable consequence of the hazardous condition. The Court further held that exemplary damages need not be specified in the complaint, as their determination is contingent upon the award of compensatory damages and left to the court's discretion.

On 14 January 1985, Jose Bernardo, a 33-year-old meat vendor, approached a parked jeepney to select meat for the day. As he grasped the vehicle's handlebars, he was electrocuted. The jeepney's antenna had entangled with an open, uninsulated electric wire at the top of a nearby meat stall roof, electrically charging the vehicle. Bernardo died shortly after in the hospital, with the cause of death attributed to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to massive brain congestion, consistent with a history of electrocution.

• The Electrocution: On 14 January 1985, Jose Bernardo went to meet a jeepney loaded with slaughtered pigs at the Baguio City meat market. As he held the handlebars to enter, he suddenly stiffened, turned black, and collapsed. He died shortly after. The jeepney's antenna had entangled with an open electric wire, charging the vehicle.
• BENECO's Electrical Installations: Investigation by a city electrical inspector revealed that BENECO installed a service drop line connected to a G.I. pipe pole. The vertical clearance of the exposed splicing point between the service drop line and the service entrance conductor was barely eight to nine feet from the ground. This violated the Philippine Electrical Code, which required a minimum vertical clearance of 14 to 15 feet. Furthermore, the open wire connections were not insulated. BENECO's own superintendent admitted the splicing point was exposed and only eight feet from the ground.
• Duration of the Violation: The open wire had existed since 1978, remaining unattended and uninsulated for approximately seven years until the fatal accident in 1985.
• The Jeepney: The jeepney, owned by Guillermo Canave, Jr., had an antenna over eight feet high that got entangled with the exposed splicing point. Canave parked the vehicle near the market stall, an area not customarily used for parking, though no municipal ordinance prohibited it.
• Victim's Earnings: Jose Bernardo was 33 years old at the time of death, managing a meat stall for five years. His widow claimed he earned P300.00 daily, but her income tax returns for 1981 and 1982 showed lower gross incomes. The victim's sister, Rosita Noefe, who owned the stall, testified that Jose earned P150.00 to P200.00 daily, with net income of P70.00 to P80.00 after expenses.

• Petitioner BENECO argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ordering BENECO to pay damages because the electrocution was directly attributable to the fault and negligence of jeepney owner Guillermo Canave, Jr., whose act of parking in a non-parking area with a high antenna was the proximate and sole cause of the accident.
• BENECO contended that the award of P864,000.00 for net income loss was erroneous because the trial court found no firm basis for it, given the contradictory and untrustworthy testimony of the victim's widow regarding his earnings.
• BENECO asserted that exemplary damages should not be awarded because the amount was not specified in the complaint, violating the Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing B.P. 129 regarding docket fees.
• BENECO questioned the grant of moral damages and attorney's fees on the ground of its alleged non-culpability.

• Respondents maintained that BENECO was solely negligent for installing and maintaining electrical connections that violated the Philippine Electrical Code, leaving an open live wire unattended for seven years.
• Respondents argued that Canave committed no negligent act, as he violated no ordinance and there was no foreseeable danger in his parking.
• Respondents contended that the testimony of Rosita Noefe provided an unrebutted basis for fixing the victim's loss of earning capacity, despite the widow's bloated figures.
• Respondents asserted that exemplary damages need not be specified in the complaint because they cannot be predetermined and are left to the court's discretion.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the award of exemplary damages is proper despite the failure to specify the amount in the complaint, in light of the rules on docket fees.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the negligence of the jeepney owner, rather than BENECO's negligence, was the proximate cause of the victim's death; whether the award for loss of earning capacity was proper and correctly computed; whether the awards for exemplary and moral damages were proper.

• Procedural: The Court held that the amount of exemplary damages need not be pleaded in the complaint because it cannot be predetermined and is contingent upon the amount of compensatory damages. Citing prior jurisprudence, the Court ruled that where a judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, an additional filing fee may be assessed as a lien on the judgment. The Court declined to expunge the claim or order an amendment to avoid further delaying the protracted proceedings.
• Substantive: The Court held that BENECO was solely liable for the electrocution. Canave's act of parking in the area was by no means an independent negligent act; he violated no law and there was no foreseeable danger. The Court emphasized that no accident would have occurred had BENECO installed the connections at the prescribed 15-foot clearance. The Court found BENECO grossly negligent for leaving an open live wire unattended for seven years. Regarding loss of earning capacity, the Court modified the award to P675,000.00. It fixed the daily gross income at P150.00 based on the unrebutted testimony of the victim's sister, deducted 50% for living expenses to arrive at an annual net income of P27,000.00, and reduced the life expectancy from 31 1/3 years to 25 years given the nature of the victim's work. The Court affirmed the award of exemplary damages because BENECO's act was attended by gross negligence, but reduced moral damages to P50,000.00 to be commensurate with the injury suffered.

• Gross Negligence in Quasi-Delict — Defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. The Court applied this to BENECO's failure to detect or repair an uninsulated connection for seven years, which justified the award of exemplary damages under Article 2231 of the Civil Code.
• Computation of Loss of Earning Capacity — The formula for net earning capacity is: Life Expectancy [2/3 x (80 - age at death)] x (Gross Annual Income - Necessary Living Expenses). The Court held that life expectancy may be reduced based on the nature and quality of the deceased's work, and that net income may be computed as 50% of gross income when specific proof of living expenses is absent.
• Pleading Exemplary Damages — The amount of exemplary damages need not be specified in the complaint because it cannot be predetermined and is left to the court's discretion based on the evidence. Unspecified claims may be subject to additional filing fees assessed as a lien on the judgment.

• "Canave's act of parking in an area not customarily used for that purpose was by no means the independent negligent act adverted to by BENECO... One thing however is sure, no accident would have happened had BENECO installed the connections in accordance with the prescribed vertical clearance of fifteen (15) feet."
• "Gross negligence has been defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected."
• "The amount of exemplary damages need not be pleaded in the complaint because the same cannot be predetermined. One can merely ask that it be fixed by the court as the evidence may warrant and be awarded at its own discretion."

• Manila Electric Co. v. Ronquillo, 99 Phil. 125 (1956) — Distinguished. BENECO cited this case to argue that Canave's negligence was an independent negligent act. The Court discarded this defense, finding no independent negligence on Canave's part.
• Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals, 31 SCRA 511 (1970) — Followed. Cited for the formula in computing life expectancy and loss of earning capacity.
• Davila v. PAL, 49 SCRA 497 (1973) — Followed. Cited in relation to life expectancy computation.
• People v. Estepano, G.R. No. 126283 (1999) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that net income may be computed as 50% of gross income when specific proof of living expenses is not established.
• Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 460 (1990) — Followed. Cited for the principle that exemplary damages need not be specified in the complaint.
• Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, 180 SCRA 433 (1989) — Distinguished/Modified. While Tacay ordered the trial court to either expunge unspecified claims for exemplary damages or allow amendment, the Court declined to apply this strictly to avoid giving premium to BENECO's gross negligence and to prevent further delay.

• Article 2231, Civil Code — Applied to justify the award of exemplary damages in quasi-delicts when the act or omission causing injury is attended by gross negligence.
• Philippine Electrical Code — Applied to establish the standard of care required for electric cooperatives, specifically the minimum vertical clearance of 14 to 15 feet for service drop lines crossing public streets, which BENECO violated.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.