Professional Services Inc. v.

Agana
Professional Services Inc. (PSI) v. Natividad and Enrique Agana
Natividad and Enrique Agana v. Juan Fuentes
Miguel Ampil v. Natividad and Enrique Agana
2007 / Sandoval-Gutierrez / Petition for review on certiorari of CA decisions
Standard of conduct > Experts > Medical professionals

FACTS
Natividad Agana was rushed to Medical City because of difficulty of bowel
movement and bloody anal discharge. Dr. Ampil diagnosed her to be
suffering from cancer of the sigmoid. Dr. Ampil performed an anterior
resection surgery on her, and finding that the malignancy spread on her
left ovary, he obtained the consent of her husband, Enrique, to permit Dr.
Fuentes to perform hysterectomy on her. After the hysterectomy, Dr.
Fuentes showed his work to Dr. Ampil, who examined it and found it in
order, so he allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room. Dr. Ampil
was about to complete the procedure when the attending nurses made
some remarks on the Record of Operation: sponge count lacking 2;
announced to surgeon search done but to no avail continue for
closure (two pieces of gauze were missing). A diligent search was
conducted but they could not be found. Dr. Ampil then directed that the
incision be closed.
A couple of days after, she complained of pain in her anal region,
but the doctors told her that it was just a natural consequence of the
surgery. Dr. Ampil recommended that she consult an oncologist to examine
the cancerous nodes which were not removed during the operation. After
months of consultations and examinations in the US, she was told that she
was free of cancer. Weeks after coming back, her daughter found a piece
of gauze (1.5 in) protruding from her vagina, so Dr. Ampil manually
extracted this, assuring Natividad that the pains will go away. However,
the pain worsened, so she sought treatment at a hospital, where another
1.5 in piece of gauze was found in her vagina. She underwent another
surgery.
Sps. Agana filed a complaint for damages against PSI (owner of
Medical City), Dr. Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes, alleging that the latter are liable
for negligence for leaving 2 pieces of gauze in Natividads body,
and malpractice for concealing their acts of negligence. Enrique Agana
also filed an administrative complaint for gross negligence and
malpractice against the two doctors with the PRC (although only the case
against Dr. Fuentes was heard since Dr. Ampil was abroad). Pending the
outcome of the cases, Natividad died (now substituted by her
children). RTC found PSI and the two doctors liable for negligence

and malpractice. PRC dismissed the case against Dr. Fuentes. CA

dismissed only the case against Fuentes.

ISSUE AND HOLDING

1.
WON CA erred in holding Dr. Ampil liable for negligence and
malpractice. NO; DR. AMPIL IS GUILTY
2.
WON CA erred in absolving Dr. Fuentes of any liability. NO
3.
WON PSI may be held solidarily liable for Dr. Ampils
negligence. YES
RATIO
DR. AMPIL IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE AND MALPRACTICE
His arguments are without basis [did not prove that the American doctors
were the ones who put / left the gauzes; did not submit evidence to rebut
the correctness of the operation record (re: number of gauzes used); re:
Dr. Fuentes alleged negligence, Dr. Ampil examined his work and found it
in order].
Leaving foreign substances in the wound after incision has
been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating
surgeon. Even if it has been shown that a surgeon was required to leave
a sponge in his patients abdomen because of the dangers attendant upon
delay, still, it is his legal duty to inform his patient within a reasonable
time by advising her of what he had been compelled to do, so she can
seek relief from the effects of the foreign object left in her body as her
condition might permit. Whats worse in this case is that he misled her by
saying that the pain was an ordinary consequence of her operation.

Medical negligence; standard of diligence

To successfully pursue this case of medical negligence, a patient must only
prove that a health care provider either failed to do something [or did
something] which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have
done [or wouldnt have done], and that the failure or action caused injury
to the patient.

Duty to remove all foreign objects from the body before closure
of the incision; if he fails to do so, it was his duty to inform the patient
about it

Breach failed to remove foreign objects; failed to inform patient

Injury suffered pain that necessitated examination and another

surgery

Proximate Causation breach caused this injury; could be traced

from his act of closing the incision despite information given by the
attendant nurses that 2 pieces of gauze were still missing; what
established causal link: gauze pieces later extracted from patients
vagina

DR. FUENTES NOT LIABLE

The res ipsa loquitur [thing speaks for itself] argument of the Aganas does
not convince the court. Mere invocation and application of this doctrine
does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence.

PSI publicly displays in the Medical City lobby the names

and specializations of their physicians. Hence, PSI is now estopped
from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it proudly
paraded in the public directory, leading the public to believe that it
vouched for their skill and competence.

o
Requisites for the applicability of res ipsa loquitur
1.
Occurrence of injury
2.
Thing which caused injury was under the control and
management of the defendant [DR. FUENTES] LACKING
SINCE CTRL+MGT WAS WITH DR. AMPIL
3.
Occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would
not have happened if those who had control or management used
proper care
4.
Absence of explanation by defendant
Under the Captain of the Ship rule, the operating surgeon is the
person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel
connected with the operation. That Dr. Ampil discharged such role is
evident from the following:

He called Dr. Fuentes to perform a hysterectomy

He examined Dr. Fuentes work and found it in order

He granted Dr. Fuentes permission to leave

He ordered the closure of the incision

HOSPITAL OWNER PSI SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH DR. AMPIL [NCC
2180], AND DIRECTLY LIABLE TO SPS. AGANAS [NCC 2176]
Previously, employers cannot be held liable for the fault or negligence of
its professionals. However, this doctrine has weakened since courts came
to realize that modern hospitals are taking a more active role in supplying
and regulating medical care to its patients, by employing staff of
physicians, among others. Hence, there is no reason to exempt hospitals
from the universal rule of respondeat superior. Here are the Courts bases
for sustaining PSIs liability:

Ramos v. CA doctrine on E-E relationship

For purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical

negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists
between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.
[LABOR LESSON: power to hire, fire, power of control]
Agency principle of apparent authority / agency by estoppel

Imposes liability because of the actions of a principal or

employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the
relationship or the authority exists [see NCC 1869]

If doctors do well, hospital profits financially, so

when negligence mars the quality of its services, the hospital
should not be allowed to escape liability for its agents acts.
Doctrine of corporate negligence / corporate responsibility

This is the judicial answer to the problem of allocating

hospitals liability for the negligent acts of health practitioners,
absent facts to support the application of respondeat superior.
This provides for the duties expected [from hospitals]. In
this case, PSI failed to perform the duty of exercising reasonable care
to protect from harm all patients admitted into its facility for medical
treatment. PSI failed to conduct an investigation of the matter
reported in the note of the count nurse, and this established
PSIs part in the dark conspiracy of silence and concealment
about the gauzes.

o
o

PSI has actual / constructive knowledge of the

matter, through the report of the attending nurses + the fact that
the operation was carried on with the assistance of various
hospital staff
It also breached its duties to oversee or supervise all
persons who practice medicine within its walls and take an active
step in fixing the negligence committed
PSI also liable under NCC 2180

It failed to adduce evidence to show that it exercised

the diligence of a good father of the family in the accreditation and
supervision of Dr. Ampil

Jr. filed a carnapping case against Allan but was dismissed by

the court for insufficient evidence. RTC held del Carmen Jr.
subsidiary liable and held the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The
CA adjudged Oscar Jr. liable to the heirs of the victims based on the
principle that the registered owner of a vehicle is directly and
primarily responsible for the injuries or death of third parties caused
by the operation of such vehicle. It disbelieved Oscar Jr.s defense
that the jeep was stolen not only because the carnapping case filed
against Allan and his companions was dismissed but also because,
given the circumstances, Oscar Jr. is deemed to have given Allan the
implied permission to use the subject vehicle because the brothers
were assigned to said jeep. After a days work, the jeepney would be
parked beside the brothers house and not returned to del Carmens
residence; the jeep could easily be started even without the use of an
ignition key; the said parking area was not fenced or secured to
prevent the unauthorized use of the vehicle which can be started
even without the ignition key.
PRIMARY LIABILITY
Oscar del Carmen Jr. v Geronimo Bacoy
GR No. 17738770
April 25, 2012
Facts: Spouses Monsalud and their daughter died from being
run over by a jeepney driven by a certain Allan Maglasang. The
jeepney was owned by Oscar del Carmen Jr. Allan was
declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case
while the father of the late Mrs. Monsalud, Geronimo Bacou
filed an independent civil action againt the former in behalf of
the minor children left by the Monsalud spouses. Del Carmen
Jr. claimed he was a victim as well as Allan stole the jeep and
was not hired as a driver by the former; he was a conductor
(and had been released from employment lately) and it was the
brother of Allan, Rodrigo who was hired as a driver. Del Carmen

Issue: W/N owner of vehicle is directly and primarily liable for

injuries caused by the operation of such
Held: Del Carmen Jr. was held to be primarily liable and not
merely subsidiary liable. Del Carmen Jr.s own evidence cast
doubt that Allan stole the jeepney. Given the dismissal of the
carnapping case filed by del Carmen Jr. against Allan, the
former also admitted to such dismissal in the SC. Under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where the thing that caused the injury
complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of
things, would not happen if those who had management or control
used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of
a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant that
the accident arose from or was caused by the defendants want of
care. All three are present in the case at bar.

the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence.

As mentioned above, the requisites for the application of
the res ipsa loquitur rule are the following:
(1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent;
(2) the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury
was under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence; and
(3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC.,
Petitioner,
RODELIO ALBERTO and
ENRICO ALBERTO REYES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 194320, G.R. No. 194320, February 1, 2012
What is at once evident from the instant case, however,
is the presence of all the requisites for the application
of the rule of res ipsa loquitur. To reiterate, res ipsa
loquitur is a rule of necessity which applies where evidence
is absent or not readily available. As explained in D.M.
Consunji, Inc., it is partly based upon the theory that
the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes
the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the
best opportunity of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff
has no such knowledge, and, therefore, is compelled to allege
negligence in general terms and to rely upon the proof of

In the instant case, the Fuzo Cargo Truck would not have had
hit the rear end of the Mitsubishi Galant unless someone is
negligent. Also, the Fuzo Cargo Truck was under the exclusive
control of its driver, Reyes. Even if respondents avert
liability by putting the blame on the Nissan Bus driver, still,
this allegation was self-serving and totally unfounded. Finally,
no contributory negligence was attributed to the driver of
the Mitsubishi Galant. Consequently, all the requisites for
the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are present,
thereby creating a reasonable presumption of negligence on the part
of respondents.

Cantre v. Sps. Go
Dr. Milagros Cantre v. Sps. John David and Nora Go
2007 / Quisumbing / Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision
and resolution

FACTS
Nora Go gave birth to her 4th child. Two hours later, she suffered
profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some placenta parts
which were not completely expelled after delivery. She then
suffered hypovolemic shock, so her BP dropped to 40/0. Dr.
Milagros Cantre, an Ob-Gyne specialist and Nora's attending
physician, together with an assisting resident physician, performed
various medical procedures to stop the bleeding and to restore
Nora's BP. While Dr. Cantre was massaging Nora's uterus for it to
contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight to warm Nora
and her baby. At that time, she was unconscious.
While in the recovery room, Nora's husband John David noticed
a fresh gaping wound (2 1/2 x 3 1/2 in) in the inner portion of her
left arm near the armpit. When he asked the nurses about the
cause of the injury, he was informed that it was due to a burn. John
David filed a request for investigation. Dr. Cantre said that what
caused the injury was the blood pressure cuff. John David brought
Nora to the NBI for a physical examination. The medico-legal said
that the injury appeared to be a burn and that a droplight when

placed near the skin for about 10 minutes could cause such burn.
He dismissed the likelihood that the wound was caused by a blood
pressure cuff since the scar was not around the arm, but just on
one side of the arm. Nora's injury was referred to a plastic surgeon
for skin grafting. However, her arm would never be the same--the
surgery left an unsightly scar, her movements are restricted, and
the injured arm aches at the slightest touch.
Sps. Go filed a complaint for damages against Dr. Cantre, the
medical director, and the hospital. In the RTC, parties have rested
their respective cases, but the court admitted additional exhibits
[consist mostly of medical records produced by the hospital during
trial pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum] offered by Sps. Go,
which were not testified to by any witness. RTC ruled in favor of the
spouses. CA affirmed RTC with modification (complaint dismissed
with respect to the medical director and the hospital; only moral
damages awarded).
ISSUES AND HOLDING
1.
WON the questioned additional exhibits are admissible in
evidence. YES
2.
WON Dr. Cantre is liable for the injury suffered by Nora
Go. YES
RATIO
Preliminary discussion
Dr. Cantre's counsel admitted the existence of the additional
exhibits when they were formally offered for admission by the RTC.
In any case, given the circumstances of this case, a ruling on Dr.
Cantre's negligence may be made based on the res ipsa
loquitur doctrine even in the absence of the additional exhibits.
Backgrounder
The Hippocratic
consideration to
live up to this
notwithstanding,

Oath mandates physicians to give primordial

their patients' well-being, and if a doctor fails to
precept, he is accountable for his acts. This
courts
face
a
unique
restraint
in

adjudicating medical negligence cases because physicians

are not guarantors of care, and they never set out to
intentionally
cause
injury
to
their
patients. HOWEVER, intent is immaterial in these cases
because where negligence exists and is proven, it
automatically gives the injured a right to reparation for the
damage caused.
Res ipsa loquitur x Medical negligence cases
In medical negligence cases, the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur allows the mere existence of an injury to justify a
presumption of negligence on the part of the person who
controls the instrument causing the injury, provided that the
following requisites concur:
1.
Accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur
absent someone's negligence

Wound not an ordinary occurrence in the act of

delivering a baby; could not have happened unless
negligence set in somewhere

2.
Caused
by
exclusive control

an instrumentality

within defendant's

It doesn't matter WON the injury was caused by the

droplight or by the blood pressure cuff, since both are within
the exclusive control of the physician in charge [Dr. Cantre]
under the captain of the ship doctrine [surgeon in charge of
an operation is held liable for his assistants' negligence
during the time when they are under the surgeon's control].

3.
Possibility of contributing conduct which would make
plaintiff responsible is eliminated

Wound could only be caused by something external

to and outside the control of Nora since she was
unconscious while in hypervolemic shock.

On Dr. Cantre's other arguments + what would have been her

saving grace

BP cuff defense does not afford her an escape. The

medical practice is to deflate the cuff immediately after use, or
else, it could cause an injury similar to what happened to Nora. If
the wound was caused by the constant taking of BP, it must have
been done so negligently as to inflict a gaping wound.

The argument that the failed plastic surgery was a measure

to prevent complication (and not intended as a cosmetic
procedure) does not negate negligence on Dr. Cantre's part.

Dr. Cantre has been Nora's ob-gyne for her past 3

deliveries, and this is the first time that Dr. Cantre is being held
liable for damages due to negligence in the practice of her
profession. She promptly took care of the wound before infection
set in. Since Nora was in a critical condition at that time, saving her
life became Dr. Cantre's elemental concern. Still, her good
intentions characteristics do not justify negligence.

NCC provisions applied

NCC 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. [...]
NCC 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission. [200k moral damages
awarded]

FACTS:

EnriqueAganatoldhiswifeNatividadAganatogolookfortheir
neighbor,Dr.Ampil,asurgeonstaffmemberofMedicalCity,aprominent
andknownhospital

Natividadsufferedfrominjurydueto2gaugesleftinsideherbodyso
theysuedProfessionalInc.(PSI)

Despite,thereportof2missinggauzesaftertheoperationPSIdidNOT
initiateaninvestigation

ISSUE:W/NPSIshouldbeliablefortort.

HELD:YES.15M+12%int.untilfullsatisfaction.

WhilePSIhadnopowertocontrolthemeans/methodbywhichDr.
AmpilconductedthesurgeryonNatividad,theyhadthepowertoreviewor
causethereview

PSIhadthedutytotreadonascaptainoftheshipforthepurposeof
ensuingthesafetyofthepatientsavailingthemselvesofitsservicesand
facilities

Corporate Law Case Digest:Professional

1.

Evenafterheroperationtoensurehersafetyasapatient

2.

NOTlimitedtorecordthe2missinggauzes

3.

ExtendedtodeterminingDr.Ampilsroleinit,bringingthe
mattertohisattentionandcorrectinghisnegligence

Services, Inc V. CA (2010)

G.R. No. 126297February2,2010

PSIdefineditsstandardsofcorporateconduct:

Admissionbarsitselffromarguingthatitscorp.resp.isNOTyetin
existenceatthetimeNatividadunderwenttreatment

LessonsApplicable:LiabilityforTorts(CorporateLaw)

Dr.Ampilmedialnegligence

PSICorporateNegligence

NOTE:
Liabilityuniquetothiscasebecauseofimpliedagencyand

admittedcorporateduty
26yearsalreadyandDr.Ampil'sstatuscouldnolongerbe

ascertained

inserted an object inside her vagina. Sometime the

following day, Rosario said that the object has already
been removed from her vagina. On May 14, 1987,
Alcantara saw Rosario with bloody skirt, foul smelling.
Rosario was brought and confined to Olongapo City
general Hospital. An OB-Gyne tried to remove the
object inside her vagina using forceps but failed
because it was deeply embedded and covered by
tissues. She was having peritonitis. She told the
attending physician that a Negro inserted the object to
her vagina 3 months ago. Ritter was made liable for
rape with homicide.
ISSUE: W/N Ritter was liable for rape and homicide

People v. Ritter 194 SCRA 690

FACTS: On or about October 10, 1986, Ritter brought
Jessie Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot in a hotel room in
Olongapo. Ritter masturbated Jessie and fingered
Rosario. Afterwards, he inserted a foreign object to the
vagina of Rosario. The next morning, Ritter gave Jessie
200, and Rosario 300. Rosario told Jessie that Ritter

HELD: No. The prosecution failed to prove that Rosario

was only 12 years old when the incident with Ritter
happened. And that Rosario prostituted herself even at
the tender age. As evidence, she received 300 from
Ritter the following morning. A doctor/specialist also
testified that the inserted object in the vagina of
Rosario Baluyot by Ritter was different from that which
caused her death. As evidence, Rosario herself said to
Jessie the following day that the object has been
removed already. She also told the doctor that a Negro
inserted it to her vagina 3 months ago. Ritter was a
Caucasian. Ritter was also acquitted for the criminal
case of rape with homicide. However, it does not
exempt him for the moral and exemplary damages he
must award to the victims heirs. It does not necessarily
follow that the appellant is also free from civil liability
which is impliedly instituted with the criminal action.
Ritter was deported.

F.F. CRUZ and CO., INC., respondent,

FACTS:
This petition for review arose from a case for damages filed by FF
Cruz against PNB. Plaintiff FF Cruz has open an account at PNBTimog Ave. Branch, wherein its president and its secretarytreasurer were the named signatories. Plaintiff FF Cruz, avers that
PNB has been negligent to deduct the cashiers and managers
checks amounting to Php9,950,000.00 and Php3,260,000.00,
respectively, as the same were unauthorized and fraudulently
made by the company accountant Aurea Caparas as both the
president and the secretary were out of the country at that time.
The plaintiff seeks to credit back and restore to its account the
value of the checks, to which the defendant bank refused as the
defendant bank alleged that it exercised due diligence in handling
the account of FF Cruz, as the application of said checks have
passed a through standard bank procedures and it was only after
finding that it has no infirmity that the checks were given due
course. The trial court rendered a Decision against defendant bank
for not calling or personally verifying from the authorized
signatories the legitimacy of the subject withdrawals considering
that they were huge amounts. For this reason, defendant PNB had
the last clear chance to prevent the unauthorized debits from the
FF Cruz account. And thus, PNB should bear the whole loss. On
appeal, the Court of Appeal, affirmed the Decision of the trial court
with modification on the award for damages that PNB should only
pay 60% of the actual damage and the Plaintiff FF Cruz should bear
the remaining 40% for its contributory negligence by giving
authority to its company accountant to transact with defendant
bank PNB. Petitioner PNB appealed the Court of Appeals Decision.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the principle of last clear chance principle is
applicable to held the defendant bank liable for damages.

1. G.R. No. 173259

July 25, 2011
Philippine National Bank, petitioner vs.

RULING:
The Court ruled that the finding of the appellate court that PNB
failed to make a proper verification as the managers check do not
bear the signature of the bank verifier, thus casting doubt as
whether the signatures were indeed underwent the proper
verification. In view of the foregoing, the Court ruled that PNB was

negligent in handling the FF Cruz account specifically with respect

to PNBs failure to detect the forgeries in subject application for
managers check which could have prevented the loss. It further
states, that PNB failed to meet the high standard of diligence
required by the circumstances to prevent the fraud, where the
banks negligence is the proximate cause of the loss and the
depositor is guilty of contributory negligence, the damage between
the bank and the depositor, a 60-40 ratio applies. Wherefore, the
petition was denied and the CAs Decision is affirmed.

National Power Corporation [NPC] v. Heirs of Noble Casionan

[Parents of Noble]
2008 / R.T. Reyes / Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision
Defenses against charge of negligence > Contributory negligence of
plaintif

FACTS
In the 1970s, 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. Banayot, NPC Area Manager, informed the Itogon mayor 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 worked as a pocket miner. In 1995, Noble
and his co-pocket miner Melchor 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 the GM of NPC was informed
of the incident, NPC repaired the dangling lines and put up warning signs
around the area.
Nobles 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 Nobles 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 modificationaward 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.

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 partys 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 Aonuevo 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.

ISSUE AND HOLDING

WON there was contributory negligence on the part of Noble. NO; hence,
NPC is not entitled to a mitigation of its liability.

RATIO
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 partys 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
defendants
negligence, is the proximate causeof the injury.

Damages awarded
Nobles unearned income of 720k [loss of earning capacity
formula: Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 x (80 age at time of death) x
(gross annual income reasonable and necessary living expenses)]

Exemplary damages of 50k [since there is gross negligence]

Moral damages of 50k