NPC v.

Heirs of Casionan
GR No. 165969
Nov 27, 2008

REYES, R.T., J.:

FACTS:
In the 1970s, National Power Corp (NPC) installed high-tension electrical transmission lines
of 69 kilovolts traversing the trail leading to Sangilo, Itogon. Eventually, some lines sagged, thereby
reducing their distance from the ground to only about 8-10 ft. This posed as a threat to passersby
who were exposed to the danger of electrocution. As early as 1991, the leaders of Ampucao, Itogon
made verbal and written requests for NPC to institute safety measures to protect trail users from
their high-tension wires. In 1995, Engr. Paterno Banayot (Banayot), NPC Area Manager, informed
the Itogon mayor Cresencio Pacalso (Mayor Pacalso) that NPC installed 9 additional poles, and they
identified a possible rerouting scheme to improve the distance from its deteriorating lines to the
ground.

19-year-old Noble Casionan (Noble) worked as a pocket miner. In 1995, Noble and his co-
pocket miner Melchor Jimenez (Jimenez) were at Dalicno. They cut 2 bamboo poles, and they
carried one pole horizontally on their shoulder, with Noble carrying the shorter pole. Noble walked
ahead as they passed through the trail underneath the NPC high-tension lines on their way to their
work place. As Noble was going uphill and turning left on a curve, the tip of the bamboo pole that
he was carrying touched one of the dangling high-tension wires. Melchor narrated that he heard a
buzzing sound for only about a second or two, then he saw Noble fall to the ground. Melchor rushed
to him and shook him, but Noble was already dead.

A post-mortem examination by the municipal health officer determined the cause of death
to be cardiac arrest, secondary to ventricular fibulation, secondary to electrocution. There was a
small burned area in the middle right finger of Noble.

Police investigators who visited the site confirmed that portions of the wires above the trail
hung very low. They noted that people usually used the trail and had to pass directly underneath
the wires, and that the trail was the only viable way since the other side was a precipice. They did
not see any danger warning signs installed. After Banayot was informed of the incident, NPC
repaired the dangling lines and put up warning signs around the area.

Noble’s parents filed a claim for damages against NPC. NPC denied being negligent in
maintaining the safety of the lines, averring that signs were installed but they were stolen by
children, and that excavations were made to increase the clearance from the ground but some poles
sank due to pocket mining in the area. NPC witnesses testified that the cause of death could not
have been electrocution since Noble did not suffer extensive burns. NPC argued that if Noble did
die by electrocution, it was due to his own negligence.

RTC decided in favor of Noble’s parents. RTC observed that NPC witnesses were biased
because all but one were employees of NPC, and they were not actually present at the time of the
accident. RTC found NPC negligent since the company has not acted upon the requests and demands
made by the community leaders since 1991. CA affirmed RTC with modification–award of moral
damages was reduced from 100k to 50k, and award of attorney fees was disallowed since the reason
for the award was not expressly stated in the decision.

ISSUE:
Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of Noble.

HELD:
NO, the incident was primarily due to the negligence of NPC by failing to fix the wires which
had sagged so low despite being informed of the same.

Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another, that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as
a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to
conform for his own protection. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack
of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. It is
an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person
injured which, concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.

The underlying precept is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should
not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own
negligence. NCC 2179 provides that liability will be mitigated in consideration of the injured party’s
contributory negligence.

Precedents + [non-]application to the case at hand

In Ma-ao Sugar Central, it was held that to hold a person as having contributed to his
injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of
warnings or signs on an impending danger to health and body. In this case, there were no warning
signs, and the trail was regularly used by people since it was the only viable way from Dalicon to
Itogon. Hence, Noble should not be faulted for simply doing what was ordinary routine to other
workers in the area.

NPC faults Noble in engaging in pocket mining, which is prohibited by DENR in the
area. In Añonuevo v. CA, the Court held that the violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold that
the violation was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the very injury that happened was
precisely what was intended to be prevented by the statute. The fact that pocket miners were
unlicensed was not a justification for NPC to leave their transmission lines dangling.