TEODORO C. UMALI, petitioner, vs. HON.
ANGEL BACANI, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
of Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and FIDEL H. SAYNES,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-40570 | 1976-01-30
ESGUERRA, J:
FACTS:
The RTC Judge Bacani rendered a judgment against the petitioner for the death of Manuel Saynes who
was electrocuted due to the fault or negligence of Teodoro Umali as the owner and manager of the
Alcala Electric Plant.
● On May 14, 1972, a storm with strong rain hit the Municipality of Alcala, Pangasinan. During the
storm, the banana plants standing on an elevated ground along the barrio road in San Pedro Ili
near the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant were blown down and fell on the electric
wire.
● As a result, the live electric wire was cut, one end of which was left hanging on the electric post
and the other fell to the ground under the fallen banana plants.
● On the following morning, barrio captain Luciano Bueno of San Pedro Ili who was passing by saw
the broken electric wire and so he warned the people in the place not to go near the wire for
they might get hurt. He also saw Cipriano Baldomero, a laborer of the Alcala Electric Plant near
the place and notified him right then and there of the broken line and asked him to fix it, but the
latter told the barrio captain that he could not do it but that he was going to look for the lineman
to fix it.
● After the barrio captain and Cipriano Baldomero had left the place, a small boy of 3 years and 8
months old named Manuel P. Saynes, whose house is just on the opposite side of the road, went
to the place where the broken line wire was and got in contact with it. The boy was electrocuted
and he subsequently died. It was only after the electrocution of Manuel Saynes that the broken
wire was fixed.
Petitioner’s defense:
Petitioner:
● claims that he could not be liable under the concept of quasi-delict or tort as owner and manager
of the Alcala Electric Plant because the proximate cause of the boy's death by electrocution could
not be due to any negligence on his part, but rather to a fortuitous event - the storm that caused
the banana plants to fall and cut the electric line.
● claims that the proximate cause of the victim's death could be attributed to the parents'
negligence in allowing a child of tender age to go out of the house alone.
ISSUE: Whether the negligence of the petitioner is the proximate cause of the death of Manuel P.
Saynes
Ruling: Yes.
Proof of negligence on the part of the petitioner.
1. There were big and tall banana plants at the place of the incident standing on an elevated
ground which were about 30 feet high and which were higher than the electric post supporting
the electric line, and yet the employees of the defendant who, with ordinary foresight, could have
easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the electric line would be endangered by banana
plants being blown down, did not even take the necessary precaution to eliminate that source of
danger to the electric line.
2. Even after the employees of the Alcala Electric Plant were already aware of the possible
damage of the storm they did not cut off from the plant the flow of electricity along the lines
3. Employee Cipriano Baldomero was negligent on the morning of the incident because even if he
was already made aware of the live cut wire, then he should have taken the necessary
precaution to prevent anybody from approaching the live wire; instead Baldomero left the
premises because what was foremost in his mind was the repair of the line.
The court stated that, that they cannot agree with petitioner's theory that the parents'
negligence constituted the proximate cause of the victim's death because the real proximate
cause was the fallen live wire which posed a threat to life and property on that morning due
to the series of negligence committed by petitioner’s employees and which could have killed
any other person who might by accident get into contact with it.
Stated otherwise, even if the child was allowed to leave the house unattended due to the parents'
negligence, he would not have died that morning were it not for the cut live wire he accidentally touched.
Art. 2179 of the Civil Code provides that if the negligence of the respondent (parents of the victim in this
case) was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the petitioner’s lack
of due care, the respondent may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. This law may be availed of by the petitioner but does not exempt him from liability.
Petitioner's liability for injury caused by his employees' negligence is well defined in par. 4, of Article 2180
of the Civil Code, which states:
"The owner and manager of the establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions."
The negligence of the employee is presumed to be the negligence of the employer because the employer
is supposed to exercise supervision over the work of the employees. This liability of the employer is
primary and direct (Standard Vacuum Oil Co. vs. Tan and Court of Appeals, 107 Phil. 109).
The proper defense for the employer to raise so that he may escape liability is to prove that he exercised
the diligence of the good father of the family to prevent damage not only in the selection of his
employees but also in adequately supervising them over their work. This defense was not adequately
proven as found by the trial Court.
The court finds no reversible error committed by the trial Court in this case, either in its appreciation of
the evidence on questions of facts or on the interpretation and application of laws governing quasi-delicts
and liabilities emanating therefrom. The inevitable conclusion is that no error amounting to grave abuse
of discretion was committed and the decision must be left untouched.
Petition is denied.
