National Power Corporation [NPC] v.

Heirs of Noble Casionan

G.R. No. 165969 – 27 November 2008
3rd Division. R.T. Reyes, J.
TOPIC: Defenses Against Charge of Negligence: Contributory negligence of plaintiff
Respondents: Parents of deceased Noble Casionan

FACTS
Alleged Cause of Accident:
- 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.
Accident:
- 19-year-old Noble Casionan worked as a pocket miner. In 1995, Noble and his co-miner Melchor Jimenez were at Dalicno.
They cut 2 bamboo poles for their pocket mining, 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
(most likely due to a ring).
- 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 (steep cliff). 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.
- Thus, Noble’s parents filed a claim for damages against NPC.
- NPC denied being negligent in maintaining the safety of the lines, averring that:
o signs were installed but they were stolen by children
o excavations were made to increase the clearance from the ground but some poles sank due to pocket mining in
the area.
o 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.
o RTC: NPC witnesses were biased because all but one were employees of NPC, and they were not actually present
at the time of the accident.
o RTC: NPC is negligent since the company has not acted upon the requests and demands made by the community
leaders since 1991.
- CA affirmed RTC with modification on awards. (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/HELD/RATIO
1. W/N there was contributory negligence on the part of Noble – NO; hence, NPC is not entitled to a mitigation of its
liability.
- 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.

Damages awarded
- Noble’s 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

JUDGMENT:
WHREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.