G.R. No. L-10838; March 1, 1916
ALFONSA CARLOS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
On September 26, 1905, during a violent typhoon in Manila, a tree fell and broke a telephone company’s wire on Calle Gagalangin. The free end of this broken wire was blown by the wind onto the defendant’s uncovered, high-voltage trolley wire. Contact with the wet ground created a circuit, charging the telephone wire with a dangerous electrical current. A child touching the wire was killed. Alfonso Sobrevilla, a policeman who went to assist, also came into contact with the wire and was electrocuted. The defendant’s trolley system was constructed in accordance with municipal ordinances, and its wires were not broken by the storm. The defendant had no control over the telephone company’s poles and wires and had no prior knowledge of the break. The electrical current was shut off only after the accident, upon receipt of an order from the city electrician.

ISSUE:
Was the Manila Electric Railroad & Light Company negligent and therefore liable for damages under Article 1902 of the Civil Code for the death of Alfonso Sobrevilla, based on:
1. Its failure to guard its trolley wires to prevent contact with a falling telephone wire; and/or
2. Its failure to proactively cut off the electrical current during the typhoon before receiving an order from the city electrician?

RULING:
No, the defendant was not negligent. The judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.

1. On the failure to guard the wires: The defendant was not negligent for failing to install guard wires to prevent contact from above. The accident occurred where the telephone wire ran parallel above, not where it crossed, the trolley wire. The record provided no evidence that such guard wires were a recognized or effective precautionary measure under the circumstances, or that their use would not potentially create greater dangers. The defendant’s wires withstood the storm and were properly maintained in their authorized location. The combination of eventsa typhoon breaking a third party’s wire which then contacted the trolley wirewas an unforeseeable or inevitable event under Article 1105 of the Civil Code for which the defendant, absent negligence, is not liable.

2. On the failure to cut off the current: The defendant was not negligent for failing to shut off the power before receiving the city electrician’s order. The defendant had a franchise duty to provide continuous public transportation, especially during a storm when it was critically needed. Furthermore, city ordinances vested technical supervision and the authority to order power discontinuance in the city electrician. Since this official, possessing the requisite technical knowledge, did not order the current shut off until after the accident, it cannot be said the defendant was negligent for not acting earlier on its own initiative.

The Court held that while companies controlling dangerous agencies like electricity owe a high degree of care, they are only bound to anticipate and guard against reasonably foreseeable combinations of circumstances. The extraordinary event that caused this accident did not result from any fault or negligence attributable to the defendant.