G.R. No. 127326.
December 23, 1999 (Case Brief / Digest)
**Title: Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Caridad O. Bernardo, and
Guillermo Canave, Jr.**
**Facts:**
1. **Incident Leading to Lawsuit**: On January 14, 1985, Jose Bernardo, a meat vendor at
Baguio City meat market, got electrocuted while touching a jeepney’s handlebars. The
jeep’s antenna had entangled with an exposed high voltage wire installed by Benguet
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO). He succumbed to cardio-respiratory arrest due to
electrocution.
2. **Initial Complaint**: On February 6, 1985, Caridad O. Bernardo, widow of Jose, filed a
complaint against BENECO on behalf of their minors for damages due to the wrongful death
of her husband.
3. **BENECO’s Third-Party Complaint**: In response, BENECO filed a third-party complaint
against Guillermo Canave, Jr., the jeepney owner, alleging his negligence as the proximity
cause of the incident.
4. **Trial Court Decision**: On August 15, 1994, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in
favor of the Bernardos, awarding damages against BENECO, and dismissing BENECO’s
counterclaim against Guillermo Canave, Jr.
5. **Appeals**: BENECO and Caridad Bernardo both appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
6. **Court of Appeals Decision**: On November 5, 1996, the CA affirmed but modified the
RTC’s decision, maintaining BENECO’s liability and increasing some damages. BENECO
filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
**Issues:**
1. **Proximate Cause of Death**: Whether BENECO’s negligence or the jeepney owner’s
alleged negligence was the proximate cause of Jose Bernardo’s electrocution and death.
2. **Basis for Damages**: Whether the award for lost income, moral, and exemplary
damages were justified given the inconsistencies in income testimony and the negligence
attributed to BENECO.
3. **Specific Pleading for Exemplary Damages**: Whether exemplary damages must be
specifically alleged and quantified in the initial complaint.
4. **Justification for Attorney’s Fees**: Whether awarding attorney’s fees was justified in
this case.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Proximate Cause of Death**:
© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. No. 127326. December 23, 1999 (Case Brief / Digest)
– The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s finding that BENECO’s gross negligence was the
proximate cause of the incident. BENECO’s failure to meet safety standards resulted in an
exposed wire causing the jeep’s antenna to electrify, leading to Bernardo’s death.
– BENECO could not shift blame to the jeepney owner, Canave, Jr. Parking near the market
stall was not independently negligent nor foreseeably dangerous.
2. **Damages**:
– **Lost Income**: The Court revised the lost income calculation down to P675,000 from
P864,000, adjusting the life expectancy and reliable income figures.
– **Moral Damages**: Reduced from P100,000 to P50,000, reasonable given the sufferings
of the plaintiffs.
– **Exemplary Damages**: $20,000 was upheld, stressing that BENECO’s gross negligence
warranted a deterrent against future neglect.
– **Attorney’s Fees**: Upheld the lower court’s award of P20,000 for attorney’s fees as
justified by the circumstances and litigation efforts.
3. **Specific Pleading for Exemplary Damages**:
– The Court found no merit in requiring the specific quantification of exemplary damages in
the complaint. These are discretionary and contingent upon the court’s evaluation of
compensatory damages.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Guideline on Electric Installations**: Electric companies must ensure installations
conform to safety codes, particularly adherence to prescribed vertical clearances and
insulation.
2. **Exemplary Damages**: Need not be quantified in complaints, awarded at court
discretion based on the principle of gross negligence and public good deterrence.
3. **Net Earning Capacity Formula**: Valid computation involves:
– Estimate life expectancy using: Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 – age at time of death).
– Establish annual net income, accounting for reasonable personal expenses.
**Class Notes**:
1. **Elements of Negligence**:
– Duty of Care
– Breach of Duty
– Causation: Must establish proximate cause linking the negligence to the harm.
– Damages: Demonstrable injury or loss resulting from breach.
© 2024 - batas.org | 2
G.R. No. 127326. December 23, 1999 (Case Brief / Digest)
2. **Relevant Provisions**:
– Art. 2231, Civil Code: Basis and awarding of Exemplary Damages in quasi-delict (gross
negligence cases).
– Philippine Electrical Code: Safety standards and vertical clearance requirements for
electric installations.
**Historical Background**:
At the time of the incident, the rapid urbanization of Baguio City led to hasty constructions
and consequently substandard infrastructure setups by utility companies like BENECO.
Such negligence reflects a broader context of growing infrastructure challenges during the
economic boom of the 1980s in the Philippines. This case underscores the legal
ramifications of infrastructure failings amid urban development pressures.
© 2024 - batas.org | 3
