View full case

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. BERNARDO

FACTS:

This case involves a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordering Benguet Electric Cooperative Inc. (BENECO) to pay damages to Caridad O. Bernardo, as guardian ad litem of the three minor children of the late Jose Bernardo. Jose Bernardo, a meat vendor, was electrocuted when the antenna of a jeepney he was about to enter got entangled with an open electric wire. The trial court found BENECO solely responsible for Bernardo's death due to its installation of a high voltage main wire distribution line and service line in violation of the Philippine Electrical Code. BENECO appealed the decision, arguing that the electrocution was caused by the fault and negligence of the jeepney owner, Guillermo Canave, Jr. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings and ordered BENECO to pay damages to the Bernardo family. BENECO now appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The case involves a negligence suit filed by the heirs of Jose Bernardo against Benguet Electric Cooperative (BENECO). On January 14, 1985, Jose Bernardo was electrocuted while inside his jeepney parked near a market stall. It was determined that the jeepney's antenna got entangled with a splicing point between the service drop line and the service entrance conductor, which was exposed and not insulated. BENECO argued that it was not their responsibility to splice or connect the service entrance conductor and that it passed through a spool insulator before reaching the splicing point. However, BENECO was found to be grossly negligent in leaving the splicing point unprotected and in violation of the Philippine Electrical Code. It was also established that the open wire had been existing since 1978, showing BENECO's neglect in maintaining its facilities. BENECO's defense that Canave, Jr.'s parking near the market stall caused the accident was rejected, as there was no violation of any law or foreseeable danger. The court of appeals awarded P864,000.00 as net income loss for the remaining thirty years of Jose Bernardo's life expectancy, although the trial court found no firm basis for this damage award.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Canave was within his right to park the vehicle in the area without violating any municipal law or ordinance.

  2. Whether there is a firm basis for awarding net income loss for the remaining years of the deceased Jose Bernardo.

  3. Whether there is sufficient basis for the fixing of damages incurred by the heirs of the deceased.

  4. Whether the claim for exemplary damages should be awarded even if the amount of damages was not specified in the complaint.

  5. Whether the grant of moral damages and attorney's fees is proper.

  6. Whether or not the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and indemnity for the death of Jose Bernardo is proper.

  7. Whether or not the amounts awarded for net income loss and moral damages should be reduced.

RULING:

  1. Canave was within his right to park the vehicle in the area where there was no violation of any municipal law or ordinance and no foreseeable danger posed by his act.

  2. The trial court found no firm basis for awarding net income loss. However, the Court of Appeals relied on the testimony of Rosita Noefe, sister of the deceased, to determine the deceased's income and fixed the net income loss for the remaining years of his life expectancy at P864,000.00.

  3. Yes, there is ample basis for the fixing of damages incurred by the heirs of the deceased. The unrebutted testimony of a witness established the earning capacity of the deceased, and the court fixed his net earning capacity based on this testimony.

  4. Yes, the claim for exemplary damages should be awarded even if the amount of damages was not specified in the complaint. The amount of exemplary damages need not be pleaded in the complaint because it cannot be predetermined. It can be fixed by the court based on the evidence and awarded at its own discretion.

  5. Yes, the grant of moral damages and attorney's fees is proper. Moral damages are intended to alleviate the spiritual suffering of the complainant, and their award is commensurate to the suffering caused by the defendant's culpable action. Attorney's fees may also be awarded in cases where the defendant's gross negligence caused harm to the complainant.

  6. The Supreme Court affirms the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and indemnity for the death of Jose Bernardo. However, the Court finds that the amounts awarded for net income loss and moral damages should be reduced.

  7. The amount awarded for net income loss is reduced from P864,000.00 to P675,000.00. The amount awarded for moral damages is also reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Individuals have the right to park their vehicles in areas where there is no violation of any municipal law or ordinance and no foreseeable danger posed.

  • In determining net income loss, the court may rely on testimonial evidence, such as the testimony of a witness who can provide a basis for fixing damages.

  • Damages can be fixed based on the unrebutted testimony of a witness if there is sufficient basis for the claim.

  • The amount of exemplary damages need not be pleaded in the complaint and can be determined by the court based on the evidence.

  • Moral damages aim to restore the spiritual status quo ante and should be commensurate to the suffering caused by the defendant's culpable action.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded in cases involving the defendant's gross negligence that caused harm to the complainant.

  • Moral damages may be awarded when the act or omission results in mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, or similar injury.

  • Exemplary damages are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good when the wrongful act done by the defendant is accompanied by aggravating circumstances.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded when the court deems it just and equitable.

  • Indemnity for the death of a person may be awarded to compensate the family for the loss of support, love, affection, and moral services.

  • The amount of damages awarded must be commensurate to the suffering inflicted.

  • The court has the power to modify the amount of damages awarded when it finds that the amount awarded is excessive or insufficient.