G.R. No. L-8328 - Manila Electric Co. vs. Remonquillo

On August 22, 1950, Efren Magno visited the three-story house of Antonio Penaloza, his stepbrother, in Manila to repair a "media agua" (a projecting ledge below a window) that was leaking.
Magno stood on the "media agua" under the third-story window and received a 3' x 6' galvanized iron sheet from his son through the window to cover the leak.
While turning around, the lower end of the iron sheet touched an exposed, uninsulated Manila Electric Company high-tension electric wire (3,600 volts) running parallel to the edge of the "media agua" and approximately 2.5 feet away.
The contact resulted in Magno's electrocution and death.
Magno's widow and children filed suit against the Manila Electric Company (the Company) for damages.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded: P10,000 compensatory damages; P784 actual damages; P2,000 moral and exemplary damages; and P3,000 attorney’s fees with costs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but reduced attorney’s fees from P3,000 to P1,000, with costs.

The electric wire was an exposed, uninsulated primary wire carrying 3,600 volts, installed two years before Penaloza’s house was built.
During the house’s construction, a prior incident involving sparks occurred when a piece of wood touched the wire.
The Company partly adjusted the wire by adding a brace to move one end farther from the house, but the other end remained as it was.
The "media agua" was only 30 inches (2.5 feet) away from the wire; city regulations required at least a 3-foot distance from wires to buildings.
The house owner was permitted to build a "media agua" one meter (39 3/8 inches) wide but built one 65 5/8 inches wide (17 1/4 inches wider), reducing the wire-to-"media agua" distance below the regulatory minimum.
Despite the violation, the city issued a final permit of occupancy for the house.

The Company claimed that no adequate insulation existed commercially for such high-voltage wires and that experimental insulation materials were prohibitively expensive.
The wires were strung with due regard to city regulations, being 7 feet 2 ½ inches away from the house side.
The Company argued that the distance should be measured from the house wall, not the "media agua."
The Court of Appeals considered compliance with minimum regulation insufficient, suggesting additional safety measures were warranted, although it did not specify what these measures should be.

The Supreme Court observed that the accident was primarily due to Magno’s own negligence and partly due to the illegal extension of the "media agua" beyond permitted dimensions.
The Company could not be held negligent or lacking due diligence for failing to insulate the wires or for the proximity of the wires to the building given lawful construction permits and ordinance compliance.
The illegal construction was approved by the city, which bears responsibility for enforcement.
The Court emphasized that the Company is not insurer of public safety and cannot be expected to monitor illegal construction continuously.
Magno’s behavior—holding the iron sheet at arm's length and swinging it without caution—was the immediate cause of the electrocution.
The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from prior cases holding electric companies liable due to different factual contexts (e.g., public places, children).
Under the rule of proximate cause, Magno’s negligent act was the efficient and direct cause of death, making the Company's negligence, if any, remote.

Whether the Manila Electric Company could be held liable for the death of Efren Magno due to electrocution caused by contact between an iron sheet and the Company's high-voltage wires.
Whether the proximity of the electric wires to the "media agua," including violations of building permits and city regulations, made the Company negligent.
Whether the Company's failure to insulate the electric wires constituted negligence.
Whether Magno's own conduct was a proximate cause or contributory negligence barring recovery.