Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals

An electric company is liable for injury caused by a fortuitous event when its own negligence in failing to exercise extraordinary diligence to prevent or remedy hazards concurs with the act of God. Extraordinary diligence demands constant vigilance during calamities to prevent or avoid probable incidents that might imperil life or limb; failure to promptly inspect and repair storm-damaged power lines in the immediate aftermath of a typhoon, particularly after prior warnings and observable electrical irregularities, constitutes actionable negligence. The duty of exercising a high degree of diligence commensurate with the danger of electricity extends to every place where persons have a right to be.

On the night of June 28, 1967, typhoon "Gening" struck Ilocos Norte, bringing heavy rains and severe flooding to Laoag City. INELCO held the franchise to supply electric power in the area. The public had been alerted to the impending typhoon through radio broadcasts and fire department announcements before it made landfall. At the Laoag Diesel-Electric Plant of the National Power Corporation, noticeable fluctuations in electric meters indicated grounded or short-circuited lines as early as 4:00 A.M. on June 29. Isabel Lao Juan, a businesswoman who owned the Five Sisters Emporium and Grocery, was staying at her son-in-law's residence on Guerrero Street. As the typhoon abated and floodwaters began to recede, she set out on foot toward her store to check on merchandise that might have been damaged. She waded in waist-deep water along Guerrero Street, accompanied at a distance by two female employees. Moments later, she screamed and sank; a dangling live electric wire was seen at the spot. Efforts to revive her failed, and she was pronounced dead from circulatory shock due to electrocution.

• The Electrocution: Between 5:30 and 6:00 A.M. on June 29, 1967, after typhoon "Gening" had abated and floodwaters were starting to recede, Isabel Lao Juan left the house of her son-in-law Antonio Yabes at No. 19 Guerrero Street, Laoag City. She waded northward in waist-deep floodwater toward the Five Sisters Emporium to inspect merchandise that might have been damaged. Aida Bulong, a salesgirl at the Five Sisters Grocery, and Linda Alonzo Estavillo, a ticket seller at YJ Cinema (partly owned by the deceased), followed five to six meters behind, walking side by side. The deceased suddenly screamed "Ay" and sank rapidly into the water. As the two women attempted to help, they saw an electric wire dangling from a post and moving in the water in a snake-like fashion; fear dissuaded them from approaching. Their shouts brought Ernesto dela Cruz from the Yabes house. He attempted to go to the deceased but turned back at about four meters away, shouting that "the water was grounded." Dela Cruz then fetched Antonio Yabes, who, after requesting the police to have INELCO cut off electric current, had the body recovered approximately two meters from an electric post. The lights inside the Yabes house were out by then, indicating that power on Guerrero had been cut.

• Physical and Medical Evidence: Dr. Jovencio Castro, Municipal Health Officer of Sarrat, examined the body around 8:00 A.M. on June 29 at the request of the relatives. The skin was grayish or cyanotic, indicating death by electrocution. An "electrically charged wound" or first-degree burn was found on the left palm, and another burned wound at the base of the left thumb. Photographs were taken (Exhibits "C," "C-1," "C-2"). The death certificate stated the cause as "circulatory shock electrocution" (Exhibit "I"). Engineer Antonio Juan of the National Power Corporation also observed a hollow wound on the left palm when he attempted resuscitation earlier that morning.

• Observations of the NPC Engineer: Around 4:00 A.M. on June 29, Engineer Antonio Juan, Power Plant Engineer at the Laoag Diesel-Electric Plant, noticed fluctuations in the electric meter indicating grounded or short-circuited lines. Between 6:00 and 6:30 A.M., he went on an inspection trip. He saw grounded and disconnected lines hanging from posts to the ground. He observed no INELCO lineman anywhere. At the intersection of Guerrero and Rizal streets, he saw an electric wire about 30 meters long strung across the street, with one end "seeming to play with the current of the water." Finding the INELCO office at the Life Theatre on Rizal Street still closed and no lineman present, he returned to the NPC compound. At about 8:10 A.M., after learning of the death, he tried to revive the deceased with a resuscitator from his jeep but failed; rigor mortis was already setting in. He later informed two INELCO linemen about the grounded lines. By that afternoon, the dangling wire on Guerrero was gone.

• INELCO's Defense Evidence: INELCO presented electrical engineer Conrado Asis, collector-inspector Loreto Abijero, lineman Fabico Abijero, and president-manager Julio Agcaoili. Their testimonies sought to establish that the electrical service system in the franchise area, including Area No. 9 where the incident occurred, was newly installed and free from defects; that 12 linemen were on round-the-clock duty; and that only a few known places suffered damaged lines (the Marcos Bridge, near the late Governor Mandac's residence, near INELCO's power plant, and near Ilocos Norte National High School). Fabico Abijero claimed that before 6:00 A.M. on June 29, he passed by the intersection of Rizal and Guerrero to switch off street lights in Area No. 9 and saw no broken wires—only people retrieving the victim's body. Dr. Antonio Briones testified for the defense that cyanosis could not have been observed three hours after death (it appears only in live persons) and that electrical burns are typically round with entry and exit points, not elongated; without an autopsy, he argued, the real cause of death could not be determined with certainty.

• INELCO's Alternative Theory: In its Answer, INELCO advanced that the deceased had, without its knowledge, installed a burglar deterrent by connecting a wire from her house to the iron gate and steel matting fence, charging them with electric current when a switch was on. It speculated that the switch was left on, causing the deceased's electrocution when she tried to open her gate. The Court of Appeals noted that this theory was abandoned during trial.

• Pre-Typhoon Warnings: Before June 28, the people of Laoag were already alerted to the impending typhoon through radio announcements. The city fire department also announced the coming flood. At INELCO, irregularities in the flow of electric current were noted because "amperes of the switch volts were moving."

• Res Gestae: Petitioner argued that the declarations attributed to Ernesto dela Cruz ("the water is grounded"), as recounted by Aida Bulong and Linda Alonzo Estavillo, were hearsay and not admissible as part of the res gestae. Dela Cruz had not actually witnessed the victim sink or scream, and his shout was a mere opinion rather than a statement of fact. Petitioner further contended that private respondents' failure to present dela Cruz as a witness warranted an adverse presumption of suppression of evidence under Section 5(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.

• Fortuitous Event: Petitioner maintained that the typhoon and accompanying flood were fortuitous events—acts of God—that should exonerate it from any liability for the victim's death.

• Assumption of Risk: Petitioner invoked the maxim "volenti non fit injuria," arguing that the deceased voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by venturing into a flooded street where the possibility of hazard was known or should have been known.

• Findings of Fact: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in completely reversing the trial court's findings of fact. The CFI had credited the testimonies of INELCO's employees showing that the electrical lines and equipment were properly maintained by a well-trained team working around the clock to keep them in excellent condition. Petitioner asserted that the appellate court's substituted findings were reversible under recognized exceptions.

• Damages: Petitioner argued that the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals were improper and exorbitant, and that the trial court did not err in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees to INELCO.

• Causation and Negligence: Private respondents maintained that the deceased died of electrocution from INELCO's dangling live wire, as proven by the burn wounds on her left palm and the eyewitness accounts of Bulong, Estavillo, and dela Cruz. They asserted that INELCO was negligent because, despite advance warnings of the typhoon and observed electrical irregularities, it failed to field linemen or conduct prompt inspections after the storm to discover and repair broken or dangling lines, leaving a live wire exposed in a flooded public street.

• Admissibility of Evidence: Respondents countered that the statements of Ernesto dela Cruz were properly admitted as part of the res gestae—spontaneous utterances made under the stress of a startling occurrence and before any opportunity to fabricate. They pointed out that his statement was a translation of an actuality he perceived through touch, not a mere opinion. They also noted that dela Cruz was present in court and equally available to petitioner, negating any adverse presumption for failure to present him.

• No Assumption of Risk: Respondents argued that the deceased left her shelter out of necessity to protect her property—her source of livelihood—from flood damage. Under the emergency exception to the doctrine of assumption of risk, a person who acts to rescue endangered property is excused from the rule. She was on a public street where she had every right to be, without regard to INELCO's consent.

• Res Gestae: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering Ernesto dela Cruz's declarations, as recounted by the witnesses, as part of the res gestae.

• Fortuitous Event and Negligence: Whether the typhoon and flood, as fortuitous events, exonerated INELCO from liability for the death of Isabel Lao Juan.

• Assumption of Risk: Whether the doctrine of assumption of risk barred the heirs of the victim from recovering damages.

• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in reversing the trial court's findings of fact.

• Damages: Whether the Court of Appeals' award of damages and its deletion of the trial court's award to INELCO were proper.

• Res Gestae: The declarations were correctly admitted as part of the res gestae. The three requisites for the admissibility of a statement under this exception to the hearsay rule were satisfied: (1) the principal occurrence—the victim's sudden scream and sinking into floodwater beside a dangling live wire—was a startling event; (2) the statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, as Ernesto dela Cruz entered the scene immediately after the sinking while the victim remained submerged and under a state of nervous excitement naturally triggered by the emergency; (3) the statement—"the water is grounded"—concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The utterance was not merely an opinion but a translation of an actuality perceived through the declarant's sense of touch. No adverse presumption from suppression of evidence arose because dela Cruz was equally available to both parties; in fact, during cross-examination, witness Estavillo suggested that petitioner's counsel ask dela Cruz directly since "he is here," yet petitioner did not call him.

• Fortuitous Event and Negligence: The typhoon and flood did not exonerate INELCO. While these constituted acts of God, the victim's death was not caused directly by the fortuitous event alone; it resulted from the concurrence of the storm and INELCO's negligence. Extraordinary diligence demanded that an electric company maintain constant vigilance during calamities to prevent or avoid probable incidents endangering life or limb. The evidence showed that INELCO failed to meet this standard: Engineer Juan saw no linemen during his inspection between 6:00 and 6:30 A.M.; the INELCO office remained closed; its electrical engineer conducted a general inspection only the following day, June 30; even the testimony of INELCO's own chief lineman confirmed that inspection began only at 8:00 A.M., after the engineer's prodding. Despite prior radio warnings, fire department announcements, and INELCO's own meter irregularities, no prompt action was taken. 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 the negligent conduct or omission.

• Assumption of Risk: The doctrine did not apply. The deceased ventured into the flooded street to protect her merchandise from flood damage—an act of rescuing endangered property during an emergency. Jurisprudence recognizes an exception to the rule that one who voluntarily assents to a known danger must bear the consequences when an emergency exists, when the life or property of another is in peril, or when a person seeks to rescue his or her own endangered property. Furthermore, the deceased was at a place where she had a right to be, on a public street, without regard to INELCO's consent.

• Review of Factual Findings: The Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court acted within its power under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 to review questions of fact. The trial court's finding that INELCO exercised due diligence was based on general testimony about what employees were supposed to do, not on what they actually did or failed to do on the specific date of the emergency. The CA's factual determination—that INELCO had no men policing the area or even manning its office during the critical hours, and that the victim was electrocuted by petitioner's dangling live wire—was supported by the evidence.

• Damages: The Court of Appeals' award was affirmed with modification. Actual damages for funeral expenses and the like were proper, but the death indemnity of ₱12,000 was increased to ₱30,000 in accordance with recent jurisprudence (People vs. Mananquil; People vs. Traya), raising total actual damages to ₱48,229.45. The compensatory damages of ₱50,000 computed per the Villa-Rey Transit formula, exemplary damages of ₱10,000, and attorney's fees of ₱3,000 were sustained. The CA correctly deleted the trial court's award of moral damages and attorney's fees to INELCO because the heirs' suit was filed in good faith; no penalty should attach to the right to litigate, and injury resulting from the exercise of a legal right is damnum absque injuria.

• Extraordinary Diligence of Electric Companies — Electricity is "an agency, subtle and deadly." The measure of care required of electric companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to the danger. This high degree of diligence extends to every place where persons have a right to be. In times of calamities such as typhoons and floods, 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 duty includes prompt efforts to discover and repair broken or dangling lines as soon as the storm abates. General testimony about routine maintenance and staffing does not satisfy this standard; proof must show what was actually done on the occasion of the emergency.

• Concurring Negligence and 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 the defendant's own negligent conduct or omission. The fortuitous event does not break the chain of causation where the defendant's prior or contemporaneous failure to exercise due care created or failed to remedy the dangerous condition.

• Assumption of Risk — Emergency Exception — A person is excused from the rule that one who voluntarily assents to a known danger must abide by the consequences if: (a) an emergency is found to exist; (b) the life or property of another is in peril; or (c) the person seeks to rescue his or her own endangered property. The victim who ventures out during or after a calamity to protect a source of livelihood acts under the compulsion of an emergency and does not assume the risk of personal injury from a utility's hidden or unexpected hazard.

• Res Gestae — Requisites and Scope — For a declaration to be admitted as part of the res gestae, three requisites must concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; (3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The exception is grounded on trustworthiness (statements are made instinctively) and necessity (spontaneous utterances are more convincing than later testimony). The scope of res gestae extends to statements by a person who arrives at the scene immediately after the startling event, while the event has not yet fully ceased and the declarant remains under nervous excitement produced by the occurrence.

• Suppression of Evidence — Equal Availability — The adverse presumption under Section 5(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court applies only where the evidence alleged to be suppressed is available exclusively to the party against whom the presumption is invoked. If the evidence is equally available to both parties, the presumption does not operate. The presence of the witness in court and the opportunity of the adverse party to call that witness negate any inference of suppression.

• Damnum Absque Injuria — Damages resulting from a person's exercise of his legal rights in good faith constitute damnum absque injuria and do not give rise to a cause of action for damages or attorney's fees. There should be no penalty on the right to litigate.

• "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."

• "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."

• "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."

• "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, or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property."

• "If damage results from a person's exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria."

• People vs. Ner, 28 SCRA 1151; People vs. Balbas, 122 SCRA 959 — Cited as authority for the three requisites of res gestae.

• People vs. Reyes, 82 Phil. 563 — Applied to support that a conversation immediately after the commission of a crime, overheard by a prosecution witness, is part of the res gestae, by analogy to the statements of dela Cruz.

• People vs. Tulale, L-7233, 18 May 1955, 97 Phil. 953 — Cited for the rule that the presumption of suppressed evidence applies only when the evidence is available solely to the party against whom it is invoked.

• Staples-Howe Printing Co. vs. Bldg. and Loan Assn., 36 Phil. 421 — Applied for the principle that no adverse presumption arises when evidence is equally available to both parties.

• Astudillo vs. Manila Electric, 55 Phil. 427 — Relied upon for the standard of extraordinary diligence required of electric companies, given that electricity is a subtle and deadly agency; the duty of high care extends wherever persons have a right to be.

• Villa-Rey Transit, 31 SCRA 511 — Followed as the formula for computing compensatory damages based on the victim's average annual income.

• People vs. Mananquil, 132 SCRA 196; People vs. Traya, 147 SCRA 381 — Cited as the basis for increasing the death indemnity from ₱12,000 to ₱30,000.

• Espiritu vs. CA, 137 SCRA 50; Auyong Hian vs. CTA, 59 SCRA 110 — Applied in support of the rule that damages and attorney's fees are unwarranted where an action is filed in good faith, because damage resulting from the exercise of legal rights is damnum absque injuria.

• Rule 131, Section 1, Rules of Court — Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. INELCO's speculative theory that the deceased was electrocuted by her own burglar deterrent failed for lack of proof.

• Rule 131, Section 5(e), Rules of Court — Presumption from willful suppression of evidence. Held inapplicable because Ernesto dela Cruz was equally available to petitioner; the presumption operates only when the evidence is at the exclusive disposal of the party charged with suppression.

• Section 9, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Appellate court's power to review questions of fact on appeal from the Regional Trial Court (formerly CFI). The Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction in reviewing and reversing the trial court's factual findings.

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

N/A — The decision was unanimous; no dissenting opinion was recorded.