CASE DIGESTS:

1. TEODORO C. UMALI vs. HON. ANGEL BACANI (Judge, CFI Pangasinan) and FIDEL H.
SAYNES
G.R. No. L-40570. 30 January 1976.

Facts: On May 14, 1972, a storm with strong rain hit the Municipality of Alcala Pangasinan. During the
storm, the banana plants standing near the transmission line of the Alcala Electric Plant (AEP) were
blown down and fell on the electric wire. The live electric wire was cut, one end of which was left hanging
on the electric post and the other fell to the ground. The following morning, barrio captain saw Cipriano
Baldomero, a laborer of the AEP, 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 thereafter, 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 that the broken wire was fixed.
Issues: (1) WON the proximate cause of the boy's death is due to a fortuitous event- storm; (2) WON boys
parents negligence exempts petitioner from liability.
Ruling: Decision affirmed.
(1) A careful examination of the records convinces the SC that a series of negligence on the part of
defendants' employees in the AEP resulted in the death of the victim by electrocution. With ordinary
foresight, the employees of the petitioner could have easily seen that even in case of moderate winds the
electric line would be endangered by banana plants being blown down.

OTHER RULING:
YES Electronic Company is liable:
1. There were big and tall banana plants at the place of the incident which were higher that the electric
posts supporting the electric line and there was no foresight that moderate winds would endanger the
plants being blown down and no measures were taken to prevent this
2. Even after they were aware they did not cut off from the plant the flow of electricity from the lines
3. Employee Cipriano Baldomero was already aware of live cut wire and instead left the premises
4. The parents negligence does not constitute proximate cause.
5. Art 2179
Art. 2179 CC 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' (petitioners) 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.