July 22, 2012

Digests
NPC v. Heirs of Casionan

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 sufer 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.

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 sufers injury. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has sufered, 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.
The underlying precept is that a plaintif 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.

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