3Republic of tbe llbilippines

~upreme ~ourt
:ffl:anila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated November 20, 2023, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248637 (SPOUSES RONALDO AND ANNIE ROSE

PARAAN, Petitioners, v. BENGUETELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
[BENECO], Respondent). -This resolves the following:

1. Motion for Reconsideration with Apology 1 dated October 21, 2019

filed by petitioner Spouses Ronaldo and Annie Rose Paraan
(Spouses Paraan), praying for the reconsideration of the Court's
Resolution2 dated September 4, 2019, which denied their Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for Review;3 and

2. Petition for Review4 on Certiorari (Petition) under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court filed by the Spouses Paraan, assailing the Decision5
dated November 29, 2018 and Resolution6 dated July 5, 2019 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 108275. The CA
granted the appeal filed by Benguet Electric Cooperative Inc.
(BENECO), which assailed the Decision7 dated April 19, 2016 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6, in Civil
Case No. 7211-R.

We GRANT the Spouses Paraan's Motion for Reconsideration with

Apology, considering their full compliance with the pertinent rules and

1
Rollo, pp. I93-196.
2
ld.at6-7.
3
Id. at 3-4.
4
Id. at 9-22.
5
Id. at 160-173. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon.
6
Id. at 27-30. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon.
7 Id. at 88-104. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog.
- over - four (4) pages ...
71
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 248637
November 20, 2023

administrative matters, as mentioned in the Court's Resolutions8 dated

September 4, 2019 and October 16, 2019. In any case, cases should as much
as possible be resolved on the merits, and not on technicalities. Strict
adherence to rules of procedure must not get in the way of achieving
substantial justice. 9

We proceed to resolve the instant Petition.

The main argument of the Spouses Paraan is that BENECO is liable for
the damages caused to their vehicle, pursuant to quasi-delict under Article
2179 of the Civil Code. 10

We uphold the findings of CA and hold that BENECO is not liable.

In Unknown Owner of the Vessel MIV China Joy v. Asian Terminals,

11
Inc., the Court held that to recover under quasi-delict, the plaintiffs must
prove the following elements:

(a) damages to the plaintiff;

(b) negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some
person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty; and
(c) the connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the
damage. 12

The case pivots on the third element: the causal connection between the
negligence and the damage. According to the Spouses Paraan, BENECO is
negligent because it installed defective concrete electric posts that were not
able to withstand the onslaught of Typhoon Emong, which then broke and
damaged their vehicle.

As its defense, BENECO states that had the electric pole that damaged
the vehicle of the Spouses Paraan dropped by itself during the typhoon,
without the aid of any external measure, then perhaps there was basis to hold
BENECO liable. 13 However, the proximate cause was the typhoon and/or the
fallen tree: what triggered the incident was the typhoon that eroded a portion
of a hill, causing the big tree to collapse, land on electric lines, and pull the
electric poles, one of which fell on the vehicle. 14 These factors are outside the

8
Id. at 6-7 and 190-191.
9
Spouses Latoja v. Lim, 790 Phil. 63, 70 (2016).
10
Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his [or her]
injury, he [or she] cannot recover damages. But if his [or her] negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
11
755 Phil. 692 (2015).
12
Id. at 706.
13
Rollo, p. 2 I6.
14 Id.

- over -
71
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 248637
November 20, 2023

control of BENECO; thus, it cannot be liable pursuant to Art. 1174 15 of the

Civil Code.

We give credence to the argument raised by BENECO.

The proximate cause of the incident was not the electric pole that fell
onto the vehicle. Proximate cause is "that which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which
the event would not have occurred." 16 In this case, the series of events was
triggered by Typhoon Emong. The electric pole that fell on the vehicle was
the immediate cause, but not the proximate cause.

Furthermore, the principle of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable.

The Court, in Interphil Laboratories Inc. v. OEP Philippines Inc., 17

enumerated the elements of res ipsa loquitur as follows:

(1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would

not have happened except for the defendant's negligence;
(2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality
within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with
the negligence complained of; and
(3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the person injured. 18

None of the three elements are present in the instant case. The alleged
defect of BENECO's electric pole was not the sole cause of the incident.
Typhoon Emong, soil erosion, and the tree that fell on the electric lines must
also be considered. While BENECO is responsible for the sturdiness of its
electric poles, it does not have exclusive management or control over the
foregoing considerations.

The principle applicable herein is damnum absque injuria. The Court has
held:
"[I]n order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act
must be not only hurtful, but wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria.
If, as may happen in many cases, a person sustains actual damage, that is,
harm or loss to his [or her] person or property, without sustaining any legal
injury, that is, an act or omission which the law does not deem an injury,
the damage is regarded as damnum absque injuria. 19

15
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation,
or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
16
Dela Cruz v. Capt. Octaviano, 814 Phil. 891, 909(2017).
17
850 Phil. 43 (2019).
18
ld.at61.
19
The Orchard Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Yu, 776 Phil. 352, 370 (2016), citing Spouses Custodio v.
Court ofAppeals, 323 Phil. 575, 585-586 (1996).

- over -
71
;{
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 248637
November 20, 2023

Therefore, the CA was correct in ruling that BENECO was not

negligent and is not liable for damages suffered by the Spouses Paraan.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

The Decision dated November 29, 2018 and Resolution dated July 5, 2019 of
the Court of Appeals, Eighth Division, in CA-G.R. CV. No. 108275 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

-
By authority of the Court:
~
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Division Clerk of Cou1111~•
71
REYNALDO A. CORTES LAW OFFICE
JAN 1 2 2024
Court of Appeals (x)
Counsel for Petitioners 1000 Manila
Room 502, Mount Crest Hotel (CA-G.R. CV No. I08275)
No. I Legarda Road, Baguio City
2600 Benguet Atty. Delmar 0. Carino
Counsel for Respondent
BENECO, Institutional Services Department
Brgy. South Drive, Baguio City, 2600 Benguet

The Hon. Presiding Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 6
Baguio City, 2600 Benguet
(Civil Case No. 7211-R)

Public lnfonnation Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Philippine Judicial Academy (x)

Supreme Court

Judgment Division (x)

Supreme Court

UR