FACTS:

The case involves the death of Noble Casionan due to electrocution from high-tension transmission lines of the National Power Corporation (NPC). Noble was a pocket miner working in Benguet. NPC had installed the transmission lines in the 1970s, and over time, some of the lines sagged and were only about eight to ten feet from the ground, posing a danger to passersby especially during the wet season. The leaders of the community had made requests for NPC to repair the lines, citing the danger it posed, but no safety measures were taken. On June 27, 1995, Noble and his co-worker were walking underneath the transmission lines when Noble's bamboo pole touched one of the wires and he was electrocuted. He died as a result. The police confirmed that the wires were hanging low and there were no warning signs in the area. After learning of the incident, NPC repaired the lines and put up warning signs. The heirs of Noble filed a claim for damages against NPC, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found NPC guilty of negligence and awarded damages. NPC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decision but reduced the amount of moral damages awarded. NPC now seeks a review on certiorari of the CA decision and argues that the damages should be deleted due to contributory negligence and lack of factual and legal bases.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the finding of negligence on the part of the petitioner is a question of law or fact.

2. Whether the finding of lack of contributory negligence on the part of the victim is conclusive.

3. Whether the victim was guilty of contributory negligence.

4. Whether the failure of the pocket miners to have a permit justifies the petitioner leaving their transmission lines hanging.

5. Whether the computation of unearned income of the victim was correct.

6. Whether the award of exemplary damages was proper.

7. Whether the reduction of the moral damages award was justified.

8. Whether the denial of the attorney's fees award was proper.

RULING:

1. The finding of negligence on the part of the petitioner is a question of fact which cannot be entertained on appeal by certiorari. The finding is deemed conclusive absent any compelling reason to rule otherwise.

2. The finding of lack of contributory negligence on the part of the victim is upheld. Contributory negligence requires an act or omission on the part of the injured party that falls below the standard of care. In this case, there is no showing that the victim acted recklessly or disregarded warnings or signs of impending danger.

3. The victim is not guilty of contributory negligence. The violation of a statute does not automatically make the violator liable for the injury unless it is shown that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury. The failure of the victim to comply with safety practices, whether imposed by ordinance or not, does not negate or mitigate recovery unless a causal connection is established between such failure and the injury sustained.

4. The failure of the pocket miners to have a permit does not justify the petitioner leaving their transmission lines hanging. The presence of community residents using the trail under the transmission lines, even before the installation of the lines, is a justification for the petitioner to ensure the safety of its transmission lines.

5. The computation of the unearned income of the victim was correct. The Court affirmed the trial court's computation which used the formula based on life expectancy and net earnings. However, the Court clarified that the amount recoverable is not the loss of the entire earnings but the loss of the portion of earnings that the heirs would have received as support. Thus, a reasonable amount for the necessary expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the computed amount.

6. The award of exemplary damages was proper. The petitioner demonstrated gross negligence by disregarding the safety of the community and failing to address the sagging high tension wires despite previous requests and warnings. Gross negligence warrants the award of exemplary damages.

7. The reduction of the moral damages award was justified. Moral damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered, and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The Court found that the reduction from P100,000 to P50,000 was appropriate to avoid an exorbitant and unjust award.

8. The denial of the attorney's fees award was proper. The Court noted that the reason for the award must be discussed in the text of the court's decision, and since there was no discussion provided by the RTC, the CA correctly disallowed it on appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

• Only questions of law may be entertained on appeal by certiorari. Finding of negligence is a question of fact.

• Findings of fact by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are deemed conclusive unless there is a compelling reason to rule otherwise.

• Contributory negligence requires an act or omission by the injured party that falls below the standard of care. It must be shown that the injured party acted recklessly or disregarded warnings or signs of impending danger.

• Violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the injury that happened was precisely what was intended to be prevented by the statute.

• Failure to comply with accepted safety practices, whether imposed by ordinance or not, does not negate or mitigate recovery unless a causal connection is established between such failure and the injury sustained.

• The presence of community residents using a trail under transmission lines justifies the duty of the petitioner to ensure the safety of its transmission lines.

• Computation of unearned income in determining damages in cases of wrongful death: The amount recoverable is not the loss of the entire earnings but the loss of that portion of the earnings that the heirs would have received as support.

• Exemplary damages: In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages are awarded where the offender was guilty of gross negligence, which is the want or absence of even slight care or diligence amounting to a reckless disregard of safety.

• Moral damages: Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. Trial courts should guard against exorbitant damages to avoid accusations of prejudice or corruption in decision making.

• Attorney's fees award: The reason for the award must be discussed in the text of the court's decision and not only in the dispositive portion. Failure to provide a discussion justifies the denial of an attorney's fees award.