G.R. No. L-40570. January 30, 1976.
TEODORO C. UMALI, petitioner, vs. HON. ANGEL BACANI, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and FIDEL H. SAYNES, respondents.

FACTS

On May 14, 1972, a storm hit Alcala, Pangasinan, causing banana plants to fall onto an electric transmission line owned and managed by petitioner Teodoro C. Umali, cutting the wire. One end of the live wire lay on the ground. The following morning, Barrio Captain Luciano Bueno saw the broken wire and warned people. He also notified Cipriano Baldomero, a laborer of the Alcala Electric Plant, who said he would find a lineman to repair it. Baldomero left the scene. Later that morning, Manuel Saynes, a 3-year-and-8-month-old boy living nearby, came into contact with the live wire and was electrocuted. The line was repaired only after the fatal incident.
The boy’s father, Fidel H. Saynes, sued Umali for damages. The trial court found Umali liable due to the negligence of his employees but mitigated the damages due to the contributory negligence of the victim’s parents in supervising their child. Umali appealed, arguing the storm was a fortuitous event and that the parents’ negligence was the proximate cause of death.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Teodoro C. Umali, as owner and manager of the electric plant, is liable for damages arising from the electrocution death of Manuel Saynes.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that a series of negligent acts by Umali’s employees constituted the proximate cause of the boy’s death. First, the employees failed to foresee the danger posed by tall banana plants near the power line and did not take preventive measures. Second, after the storm, they neglected to cut off the electricity from the plant pending inspection of the lines. Third, employee Baldomero, upon being informed of the broken live wire, failed to secure the area or provide warnings before leaving to find a lineman.
The Court rejected Umali’s claim of a fortuitous event, as the storm merely set the stage; the subsequent negligence in addressing the known hazard directly caused the harm. While the parents’ lack of supervision was contributory negligence, it did not break the chain of causation. The immediate and proximate cause was the dangerous live wire left unattended due to the plant employees’ failures, which could have harmed any person. Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, contributory negligence only mitigates damages but does not exonerate the liable party. Furthermore, under Article 2180, an employer is primarily and directly liable for damages caused by employee negligence in the performance of their functions. Umali failed to prove he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising his employees. No grave abuse of discretion was found in the trial court’s judgment.