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 3 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 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.
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 victims 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 respondents liability, but We cannot agree with
petitioners theory that the parents negligence constituted the proximate
cause of the victims 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
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, defendantappellant, which found the death 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 attorneys 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 oclock in the 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 oclock 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 oclock on the same morning by the lineman of the electric plant.
Petitioner claims that he could not be liable under the concept of quasidelict or tort as owner and manager of the Alcala Electric Plant because
the proximate cause of the boys death by electrocution could not be due
to any negligence on his part, but rather to a fortuitous eventthe storm
that caused the banana plants to fall and cut the electric linepointing
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 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 victims 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 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 victims 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 respondents liability, but We
cannot agree with petitioners theory that the parents negligence
constituted the proximate cause of the victims death because the real
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.
Petitioners 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
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 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, Muoz 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 schools 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 awarded in the civil case may still run after the
owner of the vehicle based on the latters subsidiary responsibility under
the provisions of article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. (Ibid.) [Umali vs.
Bacani, 69 SCRA 263(1976)]