G.R. No. L-8348; January 28, 1915
SOR CONSUELO BARCELO, Mother Superior of the Augustinian Sisterhood of Consolation, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Sor Consuelo Barcelo, occupied a building in Manila used as a convent and school. In December 1909, the defendant company, at the plaintiff’s request, installed four temporary electric lights in the arch of the chapel’s altar to illuminate it for Christmas ceremonies. The installation was completed on December 24, and the lights were used briefly on the evenings of December 24 and 27. Shortly after their use on December 27, a fire broke out in the chapel, destroying the building and its contents. The plaintiff filed an action for damages, alleging that the fire was caused by the defendant’s negligence in performing a defective electrical installation, specifying the use of inadequate materials, splices, lack of insulation, failure to alter fuses, and lack of a municipal permit. The defendant countered that the installation was done properly by skilled employees using suitable materials and that other sources of illumination (candles, an open oil lamp, and other electric candelabra) were present near the altar, which was decorated with flammable materials. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence and was guilty of contributory negligence for using the lights despite some apprehension of danger.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant company is liable for damages arising from the fire based on its alleged negligence in the electrical installation.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
The Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the fire. The evidence did not affirmatively establish that the fire originated from a defect in the electrical installation. Testimony regarding the fire’s origin was uncertain and did not conclusively point to the wiring near the ceiling. The Court found it at least equally probable that the fire started from other ignition sources present in the chapel, such as the open oil lamp or candles coming into contact with the highly flammable altar decorations. Since the cause of the fire was not proven to be the defendant’s negligence, no liability could attach.
The Court also noted, without definitively ruling on the matter, that the plaintiff’s act of turning on the lights after receiving assurances of safety from the defendant’s skilled workman would likely not constitute contributory negligence, as a vague apprehension of danger is insufficient when one relies on an expert’s assurance.
The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.