G.R. No. 173146 - Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Balen

Petitioner: Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO), a duly organized and registered consumers cooperative engaged in supplying electricity in Agusan del Norte and Butuan City.

Respondents: Angelita Balen and spouses Hercules and Rhea Lariosa, with the case also involving Celestino Exclamado whose death became a material fact in the proceedings.

In 1981, ANECO installed an electric post in Purok 4, Ata-atahon, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, with its main distribution line of 13,000 kilovolts traversing over the residence of Angelita Balen.

Miguel Balen, father of Angelita, lodged protests against the installation with both the District Engineer’s Office and ANECO; however, his protests were not acted upon.

On July 25, 1992, while removing a television antenna from Balen’s residence, the antenna pole inadvertently contacted ANECO’s high-tension main distribution line.

The respondents filed a complaint for damages against ANECO before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City.

ANECO’s answer denied the material allegations and argued that the complaint failed to allege any wrongful act on its part, also asserting that respondents acted with gross negligence and evident bad faith.

Reimbursement for expenses related to hospitalization, medicines, doctor’s fees, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses.

A deduction from the judgment debt for an amount previously given and acknowledged by one of the respondents.

The proximate cause of the accident was not due to any negligence on part of the respondents but stemmed from ANECO’s negligence in installing an uninsulated high-tension line over a populated area.

ANECO’s failure to install insulated wires or to put up a precautionary “WARNING-HIGH VOLTAGE-KEEP OUT” sign as required by the Philippine Electrical Code contributed to the incident.

ANECO’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied, prompting the appeal that forms the basis of the present case.

Whether ANECO’s installation of a high-tension, uninsulated electrical distribution line over a populated area constitutes negligence and is the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the respondents.
Whether the respondents’ conduct in removing the television antenna, which allegedly led to the electrocution, may be considered contributory negligence sufficient to shift or mitigate liability.
Whether strict compliance with the clearance requirements (3,050 millimeters as per the Philippine Electrical Code) absolves ANECO from its duty to exercise additional appropriate safeguards such as insulation and warning signs.
Whether the elapsed time between installation and the occurrence of the accident has any mitigating effect on ANECO’s liability.