JULIAN DEL ROSARIO, vs.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

G.R. No. L-35283; November 5, 1932

FACTS:

At around 2 oclock in the afternoon, on August 4, 1930, trouble developed in a wire used by the defendant
on Dimas-Alang Street for the purpose of conducting electricity used in lighting the City of Manila and its
suburbs. Jose Noguera, who had charge of a tienda nearby, first noticed that the wire was burning and its
connections smoking. In a short while the wire parted and one of the ends of the wire fell to the ground
among some shrubbery close to the way. Noguera then stepped into a garage which was located nearby
and asked Jose Soco, the timekeeper, to telephone the Malabon station of the Manila Electric Company
that an electrical wire was burning at that place. Soco transmitted the message at 2.25 p. m. and received
answer from the station to the effect that they would send an inspector. At the time that message was sent
the wire had not yet parted, but from the testimony of one of the witnesses, it is clear that the end of the
wire was on the ground shortly after 3 p. m.

At around 4 p.m., the neighborhood school was dismissed and the children went home. When they passed
by the hanging wire, Saturnino Endrina, one of the school kids, made a motion as if it touch the wire. Jose
Salvador, happened to be the son of an electrician and his father had cautioned him never to touch a
broken electrical wire, as it might have a current. However, Alberto del Rosario said that "I have for some
time been in the habit of touching wires" and so feeling challenged put out his index finger and touch the
wire. He immediately fell face downwards, exclaiming "Ay! madre". The end of the wire remained in
contact with his body which fell near the post. A crowd soon collected, and someone cut the wire and
disengaged the body. Upon being taken at St. Luke's Hospital he was pronounced dead.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not, Manila Electric Company should be held liable for negligence that caused the death of
Alberto del Rosario?

HELD:
1. YES. Manila Electric Company should be held liable for negligence that caused the death of Alberto.
When notice was received at the Malabon station at 2.25 p. m., somebody should have been dispatched to
the scene of the trouble at once, or other measures taken to guard the point of danger; but more than an
hour and a half passed before anyone representing the company appeared on the scene, and in the
meantime this child had been claimed as a victim.

It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can properly be imputed to the deceased, owing to his
immature years and the natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary,
and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not, in
our opinion, alter the case. But even supposing that contributory negligence could in some measure be
properly imputed to the deceased, a proposition upon which the members of the court do not all agree,
yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case, not having been the
determining cause of the accident. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil., 359.)

With respect to the amount of damages recoverable the majority of the members of this court are of the
opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover P250 for expenses incurred in connection with the death
and burial of the boy. For the rest, in accordance with the precedents cited in Astudillo vs. Manila Electric
Company (55 Phil., 427), the majority of the court are of the opinion that the plaintiff should recover the
sum of P1,000 as general damages for loss of service.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the plaintiff will recover of the defendant the sum
of P1,250, with costs of both instances.
FACTS:
Sps. Esteban were riding their jeep along the inside lane of Lacson Street where they resided [Note: at
25km/hr as Antonio Esteban claimed; CA said jeep ran fast; if the jeep braked at that speed, the spouses
would not have been thrown against the windshield]. The jeep abruptly swerved from the inside lane, then
it ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for
the installation of its underground conduit system. Antonio failed to notice the open trench which was left
uncovered because of the darkness and the lack of any warning light or signs. The spouses were thrown
against the windshield. Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a
permanent scar on her cheek, while Antonio suffered cut lips. The jeeps windshield was also shattered.

PLDT denies liability, contending that the injuries sustained by the spouses were due to their own
negligence, and that it should be the independent contractor L.R. Barte and Co. who should be held
liable. PLDT filed a third-party complaint against Barte, alleging that under the terms of their agreement,
PLDT should not be answerable for any accident or injuries arising from the negligence of Barte or its
employees. Barte claimed that it was not aware, nor was it notified of the accident, and that it complied
with its contract with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate signs.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not, PLDT is liable for the injuries sustained by Sps. Esteban?

HELD:
The accident which befell the spouses was due to the lack of diligence of Antonio, and was not imputable
to the negligent omission on the part of PLDT. If the accident did not happen because thejeep was running
quite fast on the inside lane and for some reason or other it had to swerve suddenly to the right and had
to climb over the accident mound, then Antonio had not exercised the diligence of a good father of a family
to avoid the accident. With the drizzle, he should not have run on dim lights, but should have put on his
regular lights which should have made him see the accident mound in time. The mound was relatively big
and visible, being 2-3 ft high and 1-1/2 ft wide. Also, he knew of the existence and location of the mound,
having seen it many previous times.
The negligence of Antonio was not only contributory to his and his wifes injuries but goes to thevery
cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and therebyprecludes their right
to recover damages. The perils of the road were known to the spouses. By exercising reasonable care and
prudence, Antonio could have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that
there was some alleged negligence on the part of PLDT.
The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the
excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have
prevented the injury. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had
knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there; hence, the presence of warning signs
could not have completely prevented the accident. Furthermore, Antonio had the last clear chance to
avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to PLDT.
A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such
fault or negligence causative thereof, otherwise, his action must fail. The facts constitutive of negligence
must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. In this case, there was insufficient evidence to
prove any negligence on the part of PLDT. What was presented was just the self-serving testimony of
Antonio and the unverified photograph of a portion of the scene of the accident. The absence of a police
report and the non-submission of a medical report from the hospital where the spouses were allegedly
treated have not even been explained.