GR 209910; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209910 November 29, 2017
VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Petitioner vs. EMILIO G. ALFECHE, GILBERT ALFECHE, EMMANUEL MANUGAS, AND M. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP AND JEWELRY, Respondents
FACTS
A fire on January 6, 1998, destroyed the properties of respondents Emilio Alfeche, Gilbert Alfeche, and Emmanuel Manugas. The respondents alleged the fire originated from a short circuit caused by the constant abrasion between petitioner Visayan Electric Company’s (VECO) sagging electric wire and the metal signboard of respondent M. Lhuillier Pawnshop. They claimed VECO’s wires became dangerously close to the signboard after VECO relocated its posts due to a municipal road-widening and drainage project. Eyewitnesses testified seeing sparks from the wire near the signboard before it fell onto the Alfeche roof.
The Regional Trial Court found M. Lhuillier solely negligent for installing its signboard too close to VECO’s lines. The Court of Appeals reversed this, holding VECO exclusively liable. VECO appealed, arguing the appellate court erred in disregarding the trial court’s findings and in not holding M. Lhuillier negligent for the placement of its signboard.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding VECO solely liable for damages arising from the fire.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal principle applied is that a public utility, like an electric distribution company, is presumed to possess superior technical expertise and is held to a high standard of care in the installation and maintenance of its facilities. The Court emphasized that in cases involving injury from its apparatus, the burden effectively shifts to the utility to prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. VECO failed to discharge this burden.
The evidence established that VECO relocated its posts upon the municipality’s request, which resulted in its live wire being merely eight inches from M. Lhuillier’s signboard, creating a foreseeable hazard. VECO did not present clear proof that it undertook necessary remedial measures, such as proper re-tensioning of wires or insulation, after the relocation to ensure safety. Its claim of compliance with codes was negated by the dangerous proximity it created. The Court found no conclusive evidence that M. Lhuillier’s signboard installation was inherently negligent or the primary cause. The proximate cause of the fire was VECO’s failure to safely maintain its wires post-relocation. As the entity with exclusive control over the hazardous instrumentality, VECO was correctly held exclusively liable for the resulting damages.