Case Name: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs.

By: Janlo Fevidal

HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN Topic: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
GR No.: G.R. No. 165969
Date: November 27, 2008
FACTS
In the 1970s, petitioner NPC installed high-tension electrical transmission lines of 69 kilovolts traversing the trail leading
to Sangilo, Itogon. Over time, the power lines sagged, and reduced their distance from the ground to only about 8-10
ft.The lines were located on a trail frequented by people, thus it 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.

19-year-old Noble Casionan worked as a pocket miner. In 1995, Noble and his co-pocket miner Melchor Jimenez were
at Dalicno. They cut 2 bamboo poles, and walked along the trail underneath the NPC lines on their way to their work
place. As Noble was going uphill, the tip of the bamboo pole that he was carrying touched one of the dangling wires.
Melchor narrated that he heard a buzzing sound and saw Noble fall to the ground. (He died after)

The authorities 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. 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.

Nobles parents filed a claim for damages against NPC. NPC denied being negligent in maintaining the safety of the
lines, averring that signs were installed but they were stolen by children, and that excavations were made to increase the
clearance from the ground but some poles sank due to pocket mining in the area (by Noble). 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 Nobles parents. RTC observed that NPC witnesses were biased because all but one were
employees of NPC, and they were not actually present at the time of the accident. RTC found NPC negligent since the
company has not acted upon the requests and demands made by the community leaders since 1991. CA affirmed RTC.
ISSUE
1) Is there contributory negligence on the part of Noble? NO. (NPC not entitled to a mitigation of its liability.)
HELD
NPC argues that it was Nobles negligence that caused his death. 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 partys 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 defendants 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 partys contributory negligence.

In the case at bar, the trail where Noble was electrocuted was regularly used by members of the community. There were
no warning signs to inform passersby of the impending danger to their lives should they accidentally touch the high
tension wires. Also, the trail 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.

Doctrine Notes
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.

Gross negligence has been defined to be the want or absence of even slight
care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person
or property.