2017 (GR. NO. 209910 VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. ALFECHE, ET.

AL)
R45 Questions of Law Exceptions
FACTS: One night in 1998, a fire was caused by the rubbing of VECO’s electric wire with an M’Luhieller
sign post. It caused defendants’ houses and stores to burn down.
The defendants asked the local sangunian for a site inspection. It passed a resolution directing petitioner to
perform an inspection of the area and to repair the faulty wires. Defendants asked for financial assistance
from petitioner but was denied, asserting that it was M’Luhieller’s fault.
Defendants filed claim for damages against both VECO and M’Luhieller before the RTC. The two
companies admit that there was a fire that happened and that it was indeed M’Luhieller’s sign post.
In their testimony, the defendants state that at the night of the fire they saw a cut wire swinging and burning
on top of the roof of their home and alleged that there recently was a relocation of VECO’s post in the area
due to a road widening project. That this transfer of the post was the cause of the wire sagging to the point
that it would constantly touch the signpost of M’Luhieller.
VECO countered the testimonies by presenting its own people which said that the fire was indeed caused
by the rubbing of the wire with the signage, however VECO had their pole first and that the M’luhieller
signage was the one that was relocated.
There was one witness of VECO which admitted that there was a road widening project in 1997 and that
their team asked the Mayor to seek the relocation of VECO’s posts as these would be affected by the
project. VECO relocated its post near the signage with only a few inches apart, mentioning that the old post
location left a hole in the middle of the drainage.
M’Luhieller countered this argument by presenting its own witnesses, which stated that the sign was
erected in 1995 and that before installing the signage they had to make sure that it was free from any
obstacle.
The RTC ruled in favor of VECO, giving credence to its testimonies that M’Luhieller installed their signpost
after VECO had relocated their own post. The CA reversed this decision and found VECO liable giving
greater credence to VECO’s own witness which it deemed impartial. Thus ordering petitioner to pay
damages. The MR was denied. VECO filed a R45 petition.
ISSUE(S): WON the CA erred in ruling the VECO’s negligence was the proximate effect of the fire caused.
RULING: No, it did not. The evidence found in record showed the impossibility of VECO relocating its post
after the road widening project was finished.
RATIO: Normally a R45 petition only deals with questions of law. However this is one of the cases where
the exceptions can be had.
(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
(2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible;
(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings
are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a
different conclusion;
(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are
based; and
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such
findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.
In this case, the findings of both lower court differ. The RTC found that the installation of the signage while
failing to exercise the precautions was the cause of the fire while the CA found that it was the relocation of
the electric pole too close to the signage and this was due to the road widening project.
VECO while claiming that its post were not transferred until the fire occurred is negated by the evidence
and even by common sense. The fire would not have been caused if the wires had never rubbed with
signage, but VECO keeps asserting that it relocated the pole after the fire.
The testimony that the signage was erected in 1995 was never contested and no proof was presented that
it was relocated.
VECO even attempted to discredit the statement of its own witness which said that the poles were
relocated before the occurrence of the fire and that if not for the relocated would not have rubbed the
signage. In the witness’s direct examination it was proven that the relocation had indeed preceded the fire.
One of its own witnesses have also admitted that it was the rubbing of the signage and the wires which was
the cause but during the early stages was asserting that it was the fire which preceded the relocation.

With an utter dearth of evidence indicating that it was the signage that moved, no reasonable conclusion is left other
than that the wires and posts were moved. This transfer could not have been effected by anyone other than the
electricity utility company responsible for their installation and maintenance, VECO.

Petition is denied and the CA decision ordering VECO to pay damages is affirmed.