G.R. No. 254395, June 14, 2023
DAVAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, REPRESENTED BY MARIA TERESA M. DAVID, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF VICTORINO LUCAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The surviving heirs of Victorino C. Lucas filed a complaint for quasi-delict, damages, and attorney’s fees against Davao Del Norte Electric Cooperative (DANECO). They alleged that on November 8, 2001, Victorino, while riding his motorcycle home on the Tagum-New Corella Road, got entangled with a hanging low-tension electrical wire owned and maintained by DANECO at the intersection of Purok 1, Barangay Mesaoy. This caused him to fall, hit his head on the concrete pavement, and later die on November 16, 2001, from severe head injuries. DANECO had provided P50,000.00 in financial assistance but refused further accountability. DANECO, in its defense, argued the wires were installed per standards and that the accident was caused by a fortuitous event—exceptional winds blowing a galvanized iron sheet from a nearby house/store (Sunrise Videoke House) owned by Alma Abangan, which hit and cut the wire. DANECO also contended Victorino was negligent for reckless driving and wearing a tinted helmet. Witnesses for the respondents testified they heard a transformer explosion, saw the wire hanging low, and observed DANECO’s wires in the area were often loose and drooping. They also stated this was the third incident involving DANECO’s wires in the area. Alma Abangan, DANECO’s witness, testified about the blast and the wire being cut but admitted receiving P100,000.00 in financial assistance from DANECO. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the heirs, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modifications, reducing the awards for loss of earning capacity and moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the CA committed reversible error in upholding the RTC’s finding that DANECO was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of Victorino’s accident and death.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The Court held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. It found no reason to deviate from the concurrent factual findings of the RTC and CA, which were based on substantial evidence. The Court upheld the finding of DANECO’s negligence, citing its failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining its power lines, as evidenced by the hanging wire and the history of similar incidents in the area. The defense of fortuitous event was rejected, as the evidence showed the hanging wire was due to DANECO’s lack of proper maintenance, not solely by an act of God. The Court also found no contributory negligence on Victorino’s part, as the testimonies established he was driving at a moderate speed and the hanging wire was not easily visible. The modified awards by the CA were sustained: (1) Actual damages of P667,033.30 less P50,000.00 assistance; (2) Loss of earning capacity of P684,802.357; (3) Moral damages of P200,000.00; (4) Exemplary damages of P100,000.00; (5) Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award; and (6) costs of suit. All amounts bear legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.