GR 173146; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173146 ; November 25, 2009
AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ANECO), represented by its Manager ROMEO O. DAGANI, Petitioner, vs. ANGELITA BALEN and SPOUSES HERCULES and RHEA LARIOSA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner ANECO, an electric cooperative, installed a 13,000-kilovolt main distribution line traversing respondent Angelita Balen’s residence in 1981. Balen’s father protested the installation to no avail. On July 25, 1992, Balen, Hercules Lariosa, and Celestino Exclamado were electrocuted while removing a television antenna from Balen’s residence when the antenna pole touched ANECO’s high-tension wire. Exclamado died, while Balen and Lariosa suffered severe burns.
Respondents Balen and Lariosa filed a complaint for damages against ANECO before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). ANECO denied liability, asserting that respondents’ own negligence in removing the antenna was the proximate cause of the accident. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that ANECO’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The Court held that the issue of who was negligent is factual, and the unanimous findings of the RTC and the CA, which are amply substantiated by the evidence, bar a re-evaluation absent a showing of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment. The lower courts correctly found ANECO’s negligence to be the proximate cause of the accident.
The legal logic rests on the principle that a party engaged in a hazardous enterprise, such as distributing electricity, must observe a high degree of care to prevent injury to the public. ANECO failed to exercise the requisite caution by installing a high-voltage line over a populated residential area without adequate safety measures, such as placing precautionary signs as required by the Philippine Electrical Code. The act of the respondents in removing an antenna was not the proximate cause; rather, it was the dangerous placement of the uninsulated high-tension wire that created the foreseeable peril. ANECO’s failure to rectify the hazardous installation despite prior protest constituted a breach of its duty of care. Consequently, ANECO is liable for the resulting damages under the rules of quasi-delict.