3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

G.R. No. 173146.  November 25, 2009.*

AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

(ANECO), represented by its Manager ROMEO O.
DAGANI, petitioner, vs. ANGELITA BALEN and
SPOUSES HERCULES and RHEA LARIOSA,
respondents.

Civil Law; Negligence; Definition of Negligence; Test to

Determine the Existence of Negligence in a Particular Case.—
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of
the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution,
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, by reason
of which such other person suffers injury. The test to determine
the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in the performance of the alleged
negligent act use reasonable care and caution which an ordinary
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is
guilty of negligence. The existence of negligence in a given case is
not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor
in the situation before him. The law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that norm.
Same; Same; Issue of who between the parties was negligent is
a factual issue; Court cannot pass upon absent any whimsical or
capricious exercise of judgment by the lower courts or an ample
showing that they lacked any basis for their conclusions.—The
issue of who, between the parties, was negligent is a factual issue
that this Court cannot pass upon, absent any whimsical or
capricious exercise of judgment by the lower courts or an ample
showing that they lacked any basis for their conclusions. The
unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual
ascertainment that ANECO’s negligence was the proximate cause
of the injuries sustained by respondents bars us from supplanting
their findings and substituting them with our own. The function
of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court’s
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

alleged errors of law. We are not required to weigh all over again
the factual evidence already considered in the proceedings below.
ANECO has not shown that it is entitled to be

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

470

excepted from this rule. It has not sufficiently demonstrated any

special circumstances to justify a factual review.
Same; Same; Proximate Cause; Definition of Proximate Cause.
—ANECO’s act of leaving unprotected and uninsulated the main
distribution line over Balen’s residence was the proximate cause
of the incident which claimed Exclamado’s life and injured
respondents Balen and Lariosa. Proximate cause is defined as any
cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result
would not have occurred otherwise.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Rodolfo B. Ato for petitioner.
  Bernabe, Doyon, Bringas & Partners Law Office for
respondents.

NACHURA,  J.:
On appeal is the February 21, 2006 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 66153, affirming
the December 2, 1999 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 2, as well as its subsequent
Resolution,3 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioner Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(ANECO) is a duly organized and registered consumers
cooperative, engaged in supplying electricity in the
province of Agusan del Norte and in Butuan City. In 1981,
ANECO installed an electric post in Purok 4, Ata-atahon,
Nasipit,

_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

1 Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, with Associate

Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Rollo, pp.
43-56.
2 Records, pp. 341-367.
3 Rollo, pp. 68-69.

471

Agusan del Norte, with its main distribution line of 13,000

kilovolts traversing Angelita Balen’s (Balen’s) residence.
Balen’s father, Miguel, protested the installation with the
District Engineer’s Office and with ANECO, but his protest
just fell on deaf ears.
On July 25, 1992, Balen, Hercules Lariosa (Lariosa) and
Celestino Exclamado (Exclamado) were electrocuted while
removing the television antenna (TV antenna) from Balen’s
residence. The antenna pole touched ANECO’s main
distribution line which resulted in their electrocution.
Exclamado died instantly, while Balen and Lariosa
suffered extensive third degree burns.
Balen and Lariosa (respondents) then lodged a
complaint4 for damages against ANECO with the RTC of
Butuan City.
ANECO filed its answer5 denying the material
averments in the complaint, and raising lack of cause of
action as a defense. It posited that the complaint did not
allege any wrongful act on the part of ANECO, and that
respondents acted with gross negligence and evident bad
faith. ANECO, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision,6 disposing
that:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of

[respondents] and against [ANECO], directing, ordaining and
ordering—
a)  That [ANECO] pay [respondent] Angelita E. Balen
the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP100,000.00)
and [respondent] Hercules A. Lariosa the sum of Seventy
Thousand Pesos (PHP70,000.00) as reimbursement of their
expenses for hospitalization, medicines, doctor’s
professional fees, transportation and miscellaneous
expenses;

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

_______________

4 Records, pp. 1-6.

5 Id., at pp. 26-28.
6 Id., at pp. 341-367.

472

b)  That [ANECO] pay [respondent] Angelita E. Balen

the sum of Seventy Two Thousand Pesos (PHP72,000.00) for
loss of income for three (3) years;
c)  That [ANECO] pay [respondent] Angelita E. Balen
the sum of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (PHP15,000.00) and
another Fifteen Thousand Pesos (PHP15,000.00) to
[respondent] Hercules A. Lariosa as moral damages, or a
total of Thirty Thousand Pesos (PHP30,000.00);
d)  That [ANECO] pay [respondents] Angelita E. Balen
and Hercules A. Lariosa Two Thousand Pesos
(PHP2,000.00) each or a total of Four Thousand Pesos
(PHP4,000.00) as exemplary damages;
e)  That [ANECO] pay [respondents] Angelita E. Balen
and Hercules A. Lariosa Eight Thousand Pesos
(PHP8,000.00) each or a total of Sixteen Thousand Pesos
[(PHP 16,000.00)] as attorney’s fees and the sum of Two
Thousand Pesos (PHP2,000.00) each or a total of Four
Thousand Pesos (PHP4,000.00) for expense of litigation;
f)  That [ANECO] pay the costs of this suit;
g)  The dismissal of [ANECO’s] counterclaim; [and]
h)  That the amount of Thirteen Thousand Pesos
(PHP13,000.00) given by ANECO to [respondent] Angelita
E. Balen and acknowledged by the latter to have been
received (pre-trial order, record[s,] pp. 36-37) must be
deducted from the herein judgment debt.
   SO ORDERED.”7

On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. It

declared that the proximate cause of the accident could not
have been the act or omission of respondents, who were not
negligent in taking down the antenna. The proximate cause
of the injury sustained by respondents was ANECO’s
negligence in installing its main distribution line over
Balen’s residence. ANECO should have exercised caution,
care and prudence in installing a high-voltage line over a
populated area, or it should have sought an unpopulated
area for the said line to
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

_______________

7 Id., at pp. 365-367.

473

traverse. The CA further noted that ANECO failed to put a

precautionary sign for installation of wires over 600 volts,
which is required by the Philippine Electrical Code.8
The CA disposed, thus:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is

hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.”9

ANECO filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA

denied it on May 26, 2006.10
Hence, this appeal.
Indisputably, Exclamado died and respondents
sustained injuries from being electrocuted by ANECO’s
high-tension wire. These facts are borne out by the records
and conceded by the parties.
ANECO, however, denied liability, arguing that the
mere presence of the high-tension wires over Balen’s
residence did not cause respondents’ injuries. The
proximate cause of the accident, it claims, was respondents’
negligence in removing the TV antenna and in allowing the
pole to touch the high-tension wires. The findings of the
RTC, it argues, patently run counter to the facts clearly
established by the records. ANECO, thus, contends that
the CA committed reversible error in sustaining the
findings of the RTC.
The argument lacks merit.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, by reason of which such other person
suffers injury. The test to determine the existence of
negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
Did the defendant in the

_______________

8  Supra note 1, at 52.

9  Id., at p. 56.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

10 Supra note 3.

474

performance of the alleged negligent act use reasonable

care and caution which an ordinary person would have
used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence. The existence of negligence in a given case is
not determined by reference to the personal judgment of
the actor in the situation before him. The law considers
what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines
liability by that norm.11
The issue of who, between the parties, was negligent is a
factual issue that this Court cannot pass upon, absent any
whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment by the lower
courts or an ample showing that they lacked any basis for
their conclusions.12 The unanimity of the CA and the trial
court in their factual ascertainment that ANECO’s
negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries
sustained by respondents bars us from supplanting their
findings and substituting them with our own. The function
of this Court is limited to the review of the appellate court’s
alleged errors of law. We are not required to weigh all over
again the factual evidence already considered in the
proceedings below.13 ANECO has not shown that it is
entitled to be excepted from this rule. It has not sufficiently
demonstrated any special circumstances to justify a factual
review.
That ANECO’s negligence was the proximate cause of
the injuries sustained by respondents was aptly discussed
by the CA, which we quote:

“The evidence extant in the record shows that the house of

MIGUEL BALEN already existed before the high voltage wires
were installed by ANECO above it. ANECO had to follow the
minimum

_______________

11  See Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803, February 4, 2008,
543 SCRA 560.
12 Philippine National Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006,
506 SCRA 685.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

13  Quezon City Government v. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460
SCRA 243.

475

clearance requirement of 3,050 under Part II of the Philippine

Electrical Code for the installation of its main distribution lines
above the roofs of buildings or houses. Although ANECO followed
said clearance requirement, the installed lines were high voltage,
consisting of open wires, i.e., not covered with insulators, like
rubber, and charged with 13,200 volts. Knowing that it was
installing a main distribution line of high voltage over a
populated area, ANECO should have practiced caution, care and
prudence by installing insulated wires, or else found an
unpopulated area for the said line to traverse. The court a quo
correctly observed that ANECO failed to show any compelling
reason for the installation of the questioned wires over MIGUEL
BALEN’s house. That the clearance requirements for the
installation of said line were met by ANECO does not suffice to
exonerate it from liability. Besides, there is scarcity of evidence in
the records showing that ANECO put up the precautionary sign:
“WARNING-HIGH VOLTAGE-KEEP OUT” at or near the house
of MIGUEL BALEN as required by the Philippine Electrical Code
for installation of wires over 600 volts.
Contrary to its stance, it is in fact ANECO which provided the
proximate cause of the injuries of [respondents].
One of the tests for determining the existence of proximate
cause is the foreseeability test, viz.:
x x x—Where the particular harm was reasonably
foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s misconduct, his
act or omission is the legal cause thereof. Foreseeability is
the fundamental test of the law of negligence. To be
negligent, the defendant must have acted or failed to act in
such a way that an ordinary reasonable man would have
realized that certain interests of certain persons were
unreasonably subjected to a general but definite class of
risk which made the actor’s conduct negligent, it is
obviously the consequence for the actor must be held legally
responsible. Otherwise, the legal duty is entirely defeated.
Accordingly, the generalization may be formulated that all
particular consequences, that is, consequences which occur
in a manner which was reasonably foreseeable by the
defendant at the time of his misconduct are legally caused
by his breach of duty x x x.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

Thus applying aforecited test, ANECO should have reasonably

foreseen that, even if it complied with the clearance requirements
under the Philippine Electrical Code in installing the subject high

476

tension wires above MIGUEL BALEN’s house, still a potential

risk existed that people would get electrocuted, considering that
the wires were not insulated.
Above conclusion is further strengthened by the verity that
MIGUEL BALEN had complained about the installation of said
line, but ANECO did not do anything about it. Moreover, there is
scant evidence showing that [respondents] knew beforehand that
the lines installed by ANECO were live wires.
Otherwise stated, the proximate cause of the electrocution of
[respondents] was ANECO’s installation of its main distribution
line of high voltage over the house of MIGUEL BALEN, without
which the accident would not have occurred.
xxxx
x x x the taking down by [respondents] of the antenna in
MIGUEL BALEN’s house would not have caused their
electrocution were it not for the negligence of ANECO in
installing live wires over the roof of the said house.”14

Clearly, ANECO’s act of leaving unprotected and

uninsulated the main distribution line over Balen’s
residence was the proximate cause of the incident which
claimed Exclamado’s life and injured respondents Balen
and Lariosa. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that
produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the
result would not have occurred otherwise.15
ANECO’s contention that the accident happened only
eleven (11) years after the installation of the high-voltage
wire cannot serve to absolve or mitigate ANECO’s liability.
As we held in Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals:16

“[A]s an electric cooperative holding the exclusive franchise in

supplying electric power to the towns of Benguet province, its
primordial

_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 52-55.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

15 Quezon City Government v. Dacara, supra note 13.

16 378 Phil. 1137; 321 SCRA 524 (1999).

477

concern is not only to distribute electricity to its subscribers but

also to ensure the safety of the public by the proper maintenance
and upkeep of its facilities. It is clear to us then that BENECO
was grossly negligent in leaving unprotected and uninsulated the
splicing point between the service drop line and the service
entrance conductor, which connection was only eight (8) feet from
the ground level, in violation of the Philippine Electrical Code.
BENECO’s contention that the accident happened only on
January 14, 1985, around seven (7) years after the open wire was
found existing in 1978, far from mitigating its culpability, betrays
its gross neglect in performing its duty to the public. By leaving
an open live wire unattended for years, BENECO demonstrated
its utter disregard for the safety of the public. Indeed, Jose
Bernardo’s death was an accident that was bound to happen in
view of the gross negligence of BENECO.”

Indeed, both the trial and the appellate courts’ findings,

which are amply substantiated by the evidence on record,
clearly point to ANECO’s negligence as the proximate
cause of the damages suffered by respondents Balen and
Lariosa. No adequate reason has been given to overturn
this factual conclusion. In fine, the CA committed no
reversible error in sustaining the RTC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 66153 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and

Peralta, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—The diligence with which the law requires the

individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the
nature of the situation in which he is placed and the
importance of the act which he is to perform. (Sicam vs.
Jorge, 529 SCRA 443 [2007])
——o0o—— 

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/10
3/12/22, 9:17 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 605

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f7bb528a32f93e109000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/10