THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 209910, November 29, 2017
VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. EMILIO G. ALFECHE, GILBERT ALFECHE, EMMANUEL MANUGAS, AND M. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP AND JEWELRY, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
An electric distribution company is a public utility presumed to have the necessary expertise and resources to enable a safe and effective installation of its facilities. Absent an indication of fault or negligence by other actors, it is exclusively liable for fires and other damages caused by its haphazardly installed posts and wires.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure praying that the assailed Court of Appeals October 25, 2012 Decision2 and October 8, 2013 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 02583 be reversed and set aside.
The assailed Court of Appeals October 25, 2012 Decision reversed the January 4, 2006 Decision4 of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-23694, which found herein respondent M. Lhuillier Pawnshop and Jewelry (M. Lhuillier) negligent and liable for the fire which burned down the properties of Emilio G. Alfeche (Emilio), Gilbert Alfeche (Gilbert), and Emmanuel Manugas (Manugas). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision and found herein petitioner Visayan Electric Company, Inc. (VECO) liable in M. Lhuillier's stead.
The assailed Court of Appeals October 8, 2013 Resolution denied VECO's Motion for Reconsideration.5
On the night of January 6, 1998, a fire broke out at 11th Street, South Poblacion, San Fernando, Cebu, which burned down the house and store of respondent Emilio and his son, respondent Gilbert (the Alfeches),6 and the adjacent watch repair shop owned by respondent Manugas.7 It was alleged that the cause of the fire was the constant abrasion of VECO's electric wire with M. Lhuillier's signboard.8
The next day, the Alfeches and Manugas reported the incident to the police9 and to the Sangguniang Bayan of San Fernando.10 Upon Emilio, Gilbert, and Manugas' request for site inspection, the Sangguniang Bayan of San Fernando eventually passed Resolution No. 12 requesting VECO to inspect the area and to repair faulty wires. The Alfeches and Manugas sent a letter to the management of VECO asking for financial assistance, which VECO denied. VECO asserted that the fire was due, not to its fault, but to that of M. Lhuillier.11
As their initial claim for financial assistance was not satisfied, the Alfeches and Manugas filed a Complaint for Damages against VECO and M. Lhuillier before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.12
During pre-trial, M. Lhuillier admitted that it was the owner of the signboard at its branch in San Fernando, Cebu. M. Lhuillier and VECO admitted that a fire destroyed the Alfeches' and Manugas' properties on January 6, 1998.13
The Alfeches and Manugas presented testimonial, documentary, and object evidence. They presented as witnesses Emilio, Manugas, Mignonette Alfeche (Mignonette), and Rodolfo Rabor (Rabor).14
Emilio testified that between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. of January 6, 1998, he was awakened as their house was burning.15 He went out and saw a cut wire swinging and burning at the top of his roof, about three (3) to four (4) meters away.16 He explained that his house was also used by his son, Gilbert, as a store for various merchandise such as food, beverages, and feeds. His house adjoined an M. Lhuillier pawnshop, which had a big signboard.17 Emilio presented a module simulating how the fire broke out in relation to the location of the electric posts and his house.18 He alleged that VECO posts were transferred to their current location because of a roadwidening project. This transfer caused the sagging wire of VECO to constantly touch M. Lhuillier's signboard, which, in turn, led to the breaking and burning of the wire.19 The burning cut wire went swinging on top of and landed on Emilio's roof; thus, it caused the fire that burned his house.20
Mignonette, the wife of Gilbert, corroborated Emilio's testimony that the fire came from the burning end of the electric wire near M. Lhuillier's signage. She presented pictures showing the location of their store and an electric post near M. Lhuillier's signage.21
Rabor testified that while in the highway on his way home, he noticed a spark in the electric line near M. Lhuillier's signboard. He ran towards Emilio's house to warn the Alfeches, but before getting there, the wire had dropped on the roof and caused a fire.22
Manugas attested that he owned the shop composed of "a small booth with a roof and glass window"23 beside Emilio's house. This shop was burned along with his tools, watches, and other equipment. He identified the police blotter stating the extent of the damage.24
VECO countered with testimonies of the following persons, in addition to other documentary and object evidence: Engr. Benedicto Banaag (Engr. Banaag), Engr. Simeon Lauronal (Engr. Lauronal), Candelario L. Melencion (Melencion), Engr. Felipe Constantino (Engr. Constantino), Engr. Edwin Chavez (Engr. Chavez), and Engr. Miguel Ornopia (Engr. Ornopia).
Engr. Banaag, an electrical engineer and a lawyer who had been working with VECO for 35 years,25 testified that VECO sent two (2) superintendents and a general foreman to inspect the site.26 The inspectors found that the cause of the incident was the constant rubbing of the wires of VECO with M. Lhuillier's signage.27 He also stated that M. Lhuillier's signage "was placed long after VECO installed their poles,"28 the relocation of which was made after the fire broke out.29 He claimed that their wirings and installations are in full compliance with the National Building Code and the Philippine Electrical Code, which allowed them to install their poles one half (1/2) meter inside the road-right-of-way and at least three (3) meters away from any structure.30 According to him, it was M. Lhuillier which violated the National Building Code by placing their signage near their pole, thereby causing the abrasion and the fire.31
The Municipal Engineer of San Fernando, Cebu, Engr. Lauronal, averred that there was a road-widening project, which started in September 1997, and an accompanying construction of the drainage system, which commenced on October 6, 1997, in the Alfeches' and Manugas' area.32 Their team asked the mayor to seek the relocation of VECO's posts as these would be affected by the drainage construction. VECO relocated its posts and consequently, its wires moved closer to the signage of M. Lhuillier with a distance of only eight (8) inches between them.33 He also mentioned that the old location of VECO posts left a hole in the middle of the drainage.34
Melencion, an employee of VECO for 41 years, attested that he knew of the installation of the electric wires in the area.35
Engr. Constantino, also a VECO employee, testified that sometime in the last week of December, there was a complaint that the voltage in 11th Street, South Poblacion, San Fernando, Cebu was low. Upon inspection, he noticed that VECO's wires near the signage of M. Lhuillier were newly installed. He noted that the wire used in the area was "a No. 4 aluminum standard, secondary system."36
Engr. Chavez was presented by VECO as an expert witness.37 He noted that there were two (2) kinds of secondary systems used by utility companies: the line-to-line system and the line-to-ground system.38 According to him, in a line-to-ground system, if one (1) of its wires was cut off, the flow of electricity would just continue; hence, this system was more likely to cause fire.39
Engr. Omopia asserted that VECO used the line-to-line system for safety purposes.40 Further, he stated that he personally conducted area inspections and that there was no report regarding any irregularity in the signage of M. Lhuillier.41
M. Lhuiller presented as its witnesses Emesto G. Solon (Solon), Jose Edgar Camuta (Camuta), Randy Adlawan (Adlawan), and Rolando Baranquil (Baranquil).
Solon verified that he installed the signage of M. Lhuillier and emphasized that it was free from any obstacle upon installation.42 He noted that, in every installation, he would consider several factors:
[T]hat the signage would not touch the electrical wirings of VECO, both primary and secondary wires, for safety purposes; that no pipes of [Metropolitan Cebu Water District] would be hit in making a hole; that the primary wires would have a distance of at least two (2) meters from the high tension wires; the secondary wires would not touch the signage and, that the signage [would] not be hit by the passing vehicles.43Camuta claimed that he wort the contract to install M. Lhuillier's signage in 1995. He testified that before installing the signage, they had to ensure that it was "free from any obstacle."44
These pieces of evidence move this Court to rule that it was VECO, not defendant-appellant M. Lhuillier, which was extremely remiss of its duty to ensure safe and secure transmission lines. It was utterly negligent of VECO to have allowed the transfer of the posts closer to the households without ensuring that they followed the same safety standards they used during the original installation of the posts. It must be emphasized that VECO, as the only electric distribution company in San Fernando, takes full charge and control of all the electric wires installed in the locality. It has the sole power and responsibility to transfer its wires to safe and secured places for all its consumers. However, they undoubtedly failed to observe the reasonable care and caution required of it under the circumstances. Hence, they are negligent.52The dispositive portion of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 11 of Cebu City dated 04 January 2006 is SET ASIDE and a New One Entered declaring defendant-appellee VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY (VECO) negligent and liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs-appellees. The defendant-appellee VECO is ordered to pay the plaintiffs-appellees the following as temperate damages, to wit:Following the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, VECO filed the present Petition.541. To Emilio Alfeche, the amount of P185,000.00The award of moral damages is deleted.
2. To Gilbert Alfeche, the amount of P800,000.00
3. To Emmanuel Manugas, the amount of P65,000.00
SO ORDERED.53
The findings of the Regional Trial Court and of the Court of Appeals differ in this case. The Regional Trial Court found that "had not defendant [M.] Lhuillier installed its signage in such a manner that it will come in contact with the secondary lines of defendant VECO, there could have been no short circuit which caused the fire."66 On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found that "one VECO post was affected by the road widening work. Due to the transfer, the VECO wire already touched the signboard of M. Lhuillier pawnshop."67 In the interest of arriving at a definite determination of the attendant liabilities, this Court exercises its power of review.
(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.65
The constant abrasion led to the failure of the insulation thereby causing a short circuit which eventually led to the breaking and the burning of the wire. The burned and cut wire which fell on the roof of plaintiff-appellees' house was proven to be the main cause of the fire. These flow[s] of events reveal that the negligent act of defendant-appellee VECO in transferring its pole without providing the necessary precautionary and safety measure was the natural and probable result of the fire which caused damage to plaintiffs-appellees.69This Court's inquiry proceeds from settled truth as to the immediate, factual cause of the fire. What is in dispute is whether VECO or M. Lhuillier was negligent to have engendered the confluence of proximity, abrasion, and short circuiting.
On further cross-examination, Engr. Lauronal stated:
Atty. Dalawampu (to the witness) Q-- Mr. Witness, you said that there was a road widening project at 11th Street, am I correct? A-- Yes, ma'am. Q- You also said that there was a drainage project along the area, correct? A- Yes, ma'am. ... Q- You said that there was a monitoring, were you aware that in the construction of the drainage at 11th Street, the VECO posts were affected, were you aware of that? A- Our monitoring team requested the mayor of San Fernando to request VECO to relocate their posts, ma'am. Q- Your monitoring team of your office requested the municipal mayor of San Fernando to ask VECO to relocate the posts because they were affected by the construction of drainage, meaning the drainage project had to pass through on that area where the VECO posts were located, am I correct? A- Yes, ma'am. .... Q- Here is a VECO post as shown on this picture marked as Exhibit N-1. Can you tell this Honorable Court in the monitoring done by your office if this VECO post marked as Exhibit N-1 used to be located here on this hole marked as Exhibit N-5? A- We didn't care anymore where the VECO post will be relocated, ma[']am. Q- My question is, can you tell this Honorable Court if this post marked as Exhibit N-1 used to be in this hole, located in this hole marked as Exhibit N-5, that is the question? A- Yes, the previous location of the post was this hole marked as N-5, ma[']am. Q- This post which you are referring to is this Exhibit N-1, correct? A- Yes, ma'am. Q-- But as shown on this picture Exhibit N, the VECO post at the other end of the street which was marked as Exhibit N-6 was not removed nor relocated? A- Only the VECO post was relocated, ma'am. Q-- So, the only post that was relocated was Exhibit N-1, correct? A- Yes, ma'am. .... Q-- Because of the relocation, the wire connecting the two (2) posts, Exhibit N-1 and Exhibit N-6, was necessarily moved also closer to the houses along the area at the left? A- Of course, it will be moved also because the VECO post was moved. Q- And the movement of the post on Exhibit N-1 was towards or closer to the houses along the area? A- Yes, ma'am. Q- The drainage project which you are testifying before this Honorable Court was constructed or was undertaken on October 6, 1997, am I correct? A-- Yes, ma'am. .... Q- You mean to say that the duration of the construction should be up to November 28, 1997? A- Yes, ma'am. Q- Because of the transfer of this VECO post marked as Exhibit N-1, the wire connecting the two (2) posts Exhibit N-7 and N-1, had to touch the signage of M. Lhuillier, am I correct? A- The distance of the wire from the M. Lhuillier signage was about 8 inches, the clearance, and they also placed a plastic material so that the wires will not touch the signage of M. Lhuillier, Ma'am. Q-- Engr. Lauronal, you are aware that the fire took place on January 6, 1998, in that area? A-- Yes, ma'am. Q- Engr. Lauronal, there was no change in the location or situation of the wires connecting the 2 VECO posts after the fire, there was none yet? A- Yes, there was no change, ma'am.73
Different from what VECO suggests, Engr. Lauronal was not entirely dependent on Exhibit "N." On the contrary, when initially presented with Exhibit "N," he attempted to shrug it off by answering, "We didn't care anymore where the VECO post will be relocated."75 Moreover, while he referenced Exhibit "N," the substance ofEngr. Lauronal's testimony was not the intricacies of Exhibit "N" and the veracity or the peculiarities of its features. The substance of his testimony, rather, was how VECO's posts and wires were transferred on account of road-widening and drainage projects, well ahead of the fire on January 6, 1998 and how these transfers brought VECO's wires closer to M. Lhuillier's signage.
Atty. Dinsay (to the witness) Q- Because of the drainage project they have to move the post a little bit inward to the left, correct? A- Yes, sir. Q- Engr. Lauronal, there was a gap from the electrical line to the signage of M. Lhuillier at about 8 inches, correct? A- That's correct, sir. Q- Since you are an engineer, can you estimate from this pole where you said the poles used to be and to the present location of the post marked as Exhibit N-1, can you please give us an estimate as to how far that is? A- I can't give you an estimate, all I know is that the post was transferred. Q- Can you tell whether the transfer from that former hole to the present position would be more than 8 inches? A- I think more than 8 inches, sir. Q- And, therefore, you would also say that had it not been for the fact that the post was moved more than 8 inches where it is now located, the electrical wire would not have touched the signage of M. Lhuillier, correct? A- Yes, Sir.74
(1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.80On the first element, it is undisputed that the Alfeches and Manugas suffered damage because of the fire. What has hitherto remained unresolved is which between VECO and M. Lhuillier is liable to indemnify them.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-41.
2 Id. at 55-77. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Executive Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 Id. at 93-96. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Former Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4 Id. at 42-53. The Decision was penned by Acting Presiding Judge Gabriel T. Ingles.
5 Id. at 78-91.
6 Id. at 56-57.
7 Id. at 59.
8 Id. at 56-57.
9 Id. at 59.
10 Id. at 60.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 42.
14 Id. at 43.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 57.
18 Id. at 43.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 57.
21 Id. at 44.
22 Id. at 44-45.
23 Id. at 45.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 61.
27 Id. at 52-A.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 46.
30 Id. at 45-46.
31 Id. at 52.
32 Id. at 63.
33 Id. at 46.
34 Id. at 70.
35 Id. at 47.
36 Id. at 47.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 49.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 50.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 65.
46 Id. at 51.
47 Id. at 52-A-53.
48 Id. at 52-A.
49 Id. at 69.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 70
52 Id. at 71.
53 Id. at 76.
54 Id. at 11-41.
55 Id. at 31.
56 Id. at 19.
57 Id. at 23.
58 Id. at 30.
59 Id. at 25-26.
60 Id. at 26.
61 Id. at 27.
62 Id. at 147.
63 Id. at 151.
64 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
65National Transmission Corporation v. Alphaomega Integrated Corporation, 740 Phil. 87, 97 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division] citing Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1163 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
66Rollo, pp. 52-A-53.
67 Id. at 71.
68 Id. at 52-A-53.
69 Id. at 72-73.
70 Id. at 148.
71 Id. at 149.
72 Id. at 151.
73 Id. at 147-150.
74 Id. at 150-151.
75 Id. at 148.
76 Id. at 197.
77 Id. at 45.
78 Id. at 45-46.
79 CIVIL CODE, art. 2176 provides:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
80Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagario, 512 Phil. 618, 623 (2005) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division].
81 Id.
82 Id. at 623-624.
83American Express International, Inc. v. Cordero, 509 Phil. 619, 625 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
84Rollo, p. 72.