7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

VOL. 69, JANUARY 30, 1976 263

Umali vs. Bacani
*

No. L-40570. January 30, 1976.

TEODORO C. UMALI, petitioner, vs. HON. ANGEL

BACANI, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch IX
of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and FIDEL H.
SAYNES, respondents.

Civil law; Torts; Quasi-delicts; An electric plant company

which fails to use ordinary foresight in taking necessary
precaution to eliminate tall banana plants which when blown by a
moderate wind could trigger danger, vis-a-vis, its electric lines;
which after a storm and foresecable damage to its lines that could
endanger life and limb did not cut off electric power from its plant;
and which, after being made aware, thru one of its employees, that
a live wire had been cut by the action of the storm, did not take
precaution to prevent anybody from approaching the live wire, is
negligent and liable for damages for death of 3½ year old boy who
went to the place where live wire is located and got into contact
with it.—A careful examination of the record convince Us that a
series of negligence on the part of defendants’ employees in the
Alcala Electric Plant resulted in the death of the victim by
electrocution. First, by the very evidence of the defendant, there
were tall and big banana plants at the place of the incident
standing on an elevated ground which were about 30 feet high
and which were higher than the electric post supporting the
electric line, and yet the employees of the defendant, who, with
ordinary foresight, could have easily seen that even in case of
moderate winds the electric line would be in angered by banana
plants being blown down did not even take the necessary
precaution to eliminate that source of danger to the electric line.
Second, even after the employees of the Plant were already aware
of the possible damage the storm of May 11, 1972, could have
caused their electric lines, thus becoming a possible threat lo life
and property, they did not cut off from the plant the flow of
electricity along the lines, an act they could have easily done
pending inspection of the wires to see if they had been cut. Third,
employee Cipriano Baldomero was negligent on the morning of
the incident because even if he was already made aware of the
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

live cut wire, he did not have the foresight to realize that the
same posed a danger to life and property, and that he should have
taken the necessary precaution to prevent anybody from
approaching the live wire; instead Baldomero left the promises
because what was foremost in his mind was the repair of the line,
obviously forgetting that if left unattended to it could endanger
life and property.

______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umali vs. Bacani

Same; Same; Same; Where negligence of electric utility plant

was proximate cause of death of child, parental negligence in
allowing the child to go to place where fallen live wire was located
is merely contributory.—It may be true, as the lower Court found
out, that the contributory negligence of the victim’s parents in not
properly taking care of the child, which enabled him to leave the
house alone on the morning of the incident and to go a nearby
place (cut wire was very near the house where victim was living)
where the fatal fallen wire electrocuted him, might mitigate
respondent’s liability, but We cannot agree with petitioner’s
theory that the parents’ negligence constituted the proximate
cause of the victim’s death because the real proximate cause was
the fallen live wire which posed a threat to life and property that
morning due to the series of negligence adverted to above
committed by defendants’ employees and which could have killed
any other person who might by accident get into contact with it.
Stated otherwise, even if the child was allowed to leave the house
unattended due to the parents’ negligence, he would not have died
that morning were it not for the cut live wire he accidentally
touched.
Same; Same; Negligence of employee is presumed to be
negligence of his employer who may escape liability only by proof
that it exercised diligence of good father of family to prevent
damage not only in selection of employees but in adequately
supervising their work.—The negligence of the employee is
presumed to be the negligence of the employer x x x. This liability
of the employer is primary and direct. In fact, the proper defense
for the employer to raise so that he may escape liability is to prove
that he exercised the diligence of the good father of the family to
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

prevent damage not only in the selection of his employees but also
in adequately supervising them over their work. This defense was
not adequately proven as found by the trial Court, and We do not
find any sufficient reason to deviate from its finding.

PETITION for certioari to review the decision of the Court

of First Instance of Pangasinan. Bacani. J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Julian M. Armas for petitioner.
Antonino de los Reyes for private respondent.

ESGUERRA, J.:

Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of

First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch IX, in Civil Case No.
U-2412, entitled, “Fidel H. Saynes, plaintiff-appellee versus
Teodoro C. Umali, defendant-appellant”, which found the
death
265

VOL. 69, JANUARY 30, 1976 265

Umali vs. Bacani

by electrocution of Manuel Saynes, a boy of 3 years and 8

months, as “due to the fault or negligence of the defendant
(Umali) as owner and manager of the AlcaIa Electric
Plant”, although the liability of defendant is mitigated by
the contributory negligence of the parents of the boy “in not
providing for the proper and delegate supervision and
control over their son.” The dispositive part of the decision
reads as follows:

“Wherefore, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the

plaintiff by ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum
of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for the death of his son,
Manuel Saynes; the sum of One Thousand. Two Hundred Pesos
(Pl,200.00) for actual expenses for and in connection with the
burial of said deceased child, and the further sum of Three
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for moral damages and Five Hundred
(P500.00) Pesos as reasonable attorney’s fee, or a total of Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred (P9,700.00) Pesos, and to pay the cost
of this suit, it Is So Ordered.”

Undisputed facts appearing of record are:

“On May 14, 1972, a storm with strong rain hit the Municipality
of Alcala, Pangasinan, which started from 2:00 o’clock in the

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

afternoon and lasted up to about midnight of the same day.

During the storm, the banana plants standing on an elevated
ground along the barrio road in San Pedro Ili of said municipality
and near the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant were
blown down and fell on the electric wire. As a result, the live
electric wire was cut, one end of which was left hanging on the
electric post and the other fell to the ground under the fallen
banana plants.
“On the following morning, at about 9:00 o’clock barrio captain
Luciano Bueno of San Pedro Ili who was passing by saw the
broken electric wire and so he warned the people in the place not
to go near the wire for they might get hurt. He also saw Cipriano
Baldomero, a laborer of the Alcala Electric Plant near the place
and notified him right then and there of the broken line and
asked him to fix it, but the latter told the barrio captain that he
could not do it but that he was going to look for the lineman to fix
it.
“Sometime after the barrio captain and Cipriano Baldomero
had left the place, a small boy of 3 years and 8 months old by the
name of Manuel P. Saynes, whose house is just on the opposite
side of the road, went to the place where the broken line wire was
and got in contact with it, The boy was electrocuted and he
subsequently died. It was only after the electrocution of Manuel
Saynes that the broken wire was fixed at about 10:00 o’clock on
the same morning by the lineman of the electric plant.”

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umali vs. Bacani

Petitioner claims that he could not be liable under the

concept of quasi-delict or tort as owner and manager of the
Alcala Electric Plant because the proximate cause of the
boy’s death by electrocution could not be due to any
negligence on his part, but rather to a fortuitous event—
the storm that caused the banana plants to fall and cut the
electric line—pointing out the absence of negligence on the
part of his employee Cipriano Baldomero who tried to have
the line repaired and the presence of negligence of the
parents of the child in allowing him to leave his house
during that time.
A careful examination of the record convinces Us that a
series of negligence on the part of defendants’ employees in
the Alcala Electric Plant resulted in the death of the victim
by electrocution. First, by the very evidence of the
defendant, there were big and tall banana plants at the
place of the incident standing on an elevated ground which
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

were about 30 feet high and which were higher than the
electric post supporting the electric line, and yet the
employees of the defendant who, with ordinary foresight,
could have easily seen that even in case of moderate winds
the electric line would be endangered by-banana plants
being blown down, did not even take the necessary
precaution to eliminate that source of danger to the electric
line. Second, even after the employees of the Alcala Electric
Plant were already aware of the possible damage the storm
of May 14, 1972, could have caused their electric lines, thus
becoming a possible threat to life and property, they did not
cut off from the plant the flow of electricity along the lines,
an act they could have easily done pending inspection of
the wires to see if they had been cut. Third, employee
Cipriano Baldomero was negligent on the morning of the
incident because even if he was already made aware of the
live cut wire, he did not have the foresight to realize that
the same posed a danger to life and property, and that he
should have taken the necessary precaution to prevent
anybody from approaching the live wire; instead Baldomero
left the premises because what was foremost in his mind
was the repair of the line, obviously forgetting that if left
unattended to it could endanger life and property.
On defendants’ argument that the proximate cause of
the victim’s death could be attributed to the parents’
negligence in allowing a child of tender age to go out of the
house alone, We could readily see that because of the
aforementioned series of

267

VOL. 69, JANUARY 30, 1976 267

Umali vs. Bacani

negligence on the part of defendants’ employees resulting

in a live wire lying on the premises without any visible
warning of its lethal character, anybody, even a responsible
grown up or not necessarily an innocent child, could have
met the same fate that befell the victim. It may be true, as
the lower Court found out, that the contributory negligence
of the victim’s parents in not properly taking care of the
child, which enabled him to leave the house alone on the
morning of the incident and go to a nearby place (cut wire
was very near the house where victim was living) where
the fatal fallen wire electrocuted him, might mitigate
respondent’s liability, but We cannot agree with
petitioner’s theory that the parents’ negligence constituted
the proximate cause of the victim’s death because the real
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

proximate cause was the fallen live wire which posed a

threat to life and property on that morning due to the
series of negligence adverted to above committed by
defendants’ employees and which could have killed any
other person who might by accident get into contact with it.
Stated otherwise, even if the child was allowed to leave the
house unattended due to the parents’ negligence, he would
not have died that morning where it not for the cut live
wire he accidentally touched.
Art. 2179 of the Civil Code provides that if the
negligence of the plaintiff (parents of the victim in this
case) was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants’ lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded. This law may be
availed of by the petitioner but does not exempt him from
liability.
Petitioner’s liability for injury caused by his employees
negligence is well defined in par. 4, of Article 2180 of the
Civil Code, which states:

“The owner and manager of an establishment or enterprise are

likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.”

The negligence of the employee is presumed to be the

negligence of the employer because the employer is
supposed to exercise supervision over the work of the
employees. This liability of the employer is primary and
direct (Standard Vacuum Oil Co. vs. Tan and Court of
Appeals, 107 Phil. 109). In fact the proper defense for the
employer to raise so that he may escape liability is to prove
that he exercised, the diligence of the

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umali vs. Bacani

good father of the family to prevent damage not only in the

selection-of his employees but also in adequately
supervising them over their work. This defense was not
adequately proven as found by the trial Court, and We do
not find any sufficient reason to deviate from its finding.
Notwithstanding diligent efforts, We fail to find any
reversible error committed by the trial Court in this case,
either in its appreciation of the evidence on questions of

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

facts or on the interpretation and application of laws

governing quasi-delicts and liabilities emanating
therefrom. The inevitable conclusion is that no error
amounting to grave abuse of discretion was committed and
the decision must be left untouched.
WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court dated
June 27, 1974 is affirmed.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma

and Martin, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.

Notes.—Under the provisions of Article 2180 of the new

Civil Code, the president of a vocational school and the
instructor of the student of the school who caused the death
of his classmate are jointly and severally liable for damages
to the parents of the deceased who was fatally injured at
the school’s laboratory room. (Palisoc vs. Brillantes, 41
SCRA 548).
Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility. In
negligence cases, the offended party (or his heirs) has the
option between an action for enforcement of civil liability
based on culpa criminal under article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code and an action for recovery of damages based on
culpa aquiliana under article 2177 of the Civil Code. The
action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa
criminal section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court deems
simultaneously instituted with the criminal action, unless
expressly waived or reserved for a separate application by
the offended party. Article 2177 of the Civil Code, however,
precludes recovery of damages twice for the same negligent
act or omission. (Padua vs. Robles, 66 SCRA 489). Under
these principles, it has been held that where after
convicting a driver in the criminal case for negligence, the
trial court stated in its judgment that “the civil liability of
the accused has already been determined and assessed in
Civil Case No. 427-0”, the offended party who failed to
obtain the damages
269

VOL. 69, JANUARY 30, 1976 269

Security Services Unlimited, Inc. vs. Workmen’s
Compensation Commission

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/8
7/19/24, 10:01 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 069

awarded in the civil case may still run after the owner of
the vehicle based on the latter’s subsidiary responsibility
under the provisions of article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code. (Ibid.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000190c8b88fb3ce9454c3000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/8