electrocution).

"
378 Phil. 1137
On 6 February 1985 Caridad O. Bernardo, widow of Jose Bernardo, and their minor
SECOND DIVISION children, Jojo, Jeffrey and Jo-an, all surnamed Bernardo, filed a complaint against
BENECO before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City for a sum of money and
[ G.R. No. 127326. December 23, 1999 ] damages arising from the electrocution of Jose Bernardo. In the same civil action,
BENECO filed a third-party complaint against Guillermo Canave, Jr., the jeepney
owner.
BENGUET  ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PETITIONER, VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, CARIDAD O. BERNARDO AS GUARDIAN In its decision dated 15 August 1994, the trial court ruled in favor of the Bernardos
AD LITEM FOR MINORS JOJO, JEFFREY AND JO-AN, ALL and ordered BENECO to pay them damages. [2] Both petitioner and private
SURNAMED BERNARDO, AND GUILLERMO CANAVE, JR., respondents herein appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 5 November 1996 the
RESPONDENTS. appellate court promulgated its Decision which BENECO now assails contending inter
alia that the appellate court gravely erred in ordering BENECO to pay damages in light
DE CIS ION of the clear evidence that it was third-party defendant Canave's fault or negligence
which was the proximate and sole cause, or at least the principal cause, of the
electrocution and death of Jose Bernardo.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
First, BENECO questions the award of damages by respondent court notwithstanding
This case involves a review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of
a clear showing that the electrocution and death of Jose Bernardo were directly
Appeals[1]affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of attributable to the fault and negligence of jeepney owner Guillermo Canave, Jr.
Baguio City, and ordering petitioner Benguet Electric Cooperative Inc. (BENECO) to
pay Caridad O. Bernardo, as guardian ad litem of the three (3) minor children of the The records of the case show that respondent court did not commit any reversible
late Jose Bernardo P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, with interest thereon at the error in affirming the findings of the trial court that BENECO was solely responsible
legal rate from February 6, 1985, the date of the filing of the complaint, until fully for the untimely death of Jose Bernardo through accidental electrocution. According to
paid, P100,000.00 for moral damages, P20,000.00 for exemplary damages, another
the trial court, which we find substantiated by the records -[3]
P20,000.00 for attorney's fees, P864,000.00 for net income loss for the remaining
thirty (30) years of the life expectancy of the deceased, and to pay the costs of suit. Through Virgilio Cerezo, a registered master electrician and presently the
Chief Electrical Building Inspector of the General Services Division of the
The appellate court dismissed for lack of merit the counterclaim of BENECO against City of Baguio, who was tasked to investigate the electrocution of
the Bernardos and its third party complaint against Guillermo Canave, Jr., as well as Bernardo, the plaintiffs adduced proof tending to show that the defendant
the latter's counterclaim. BENECO installed a No. 2 high voltage main wire distribution line and a
No. 6 service line to provide power at the temporary meat market on
For five (5) years up to the time of his death, Jose Bernardo managed a stall at the Hilltop Road. It put up a three-inch G.I. pipe pole to which the No. 2 main
Baguio City meat market. On 14 January 1985 at around 7:50 in the morning, Jose line was strung on top of a stall where a service drop line was connected.
together with other meat vendors went out of their stalls to meet a jeepney loaded with The height of the electrical connection from the No. 2 line to the service
slaughtered pigs in order to select the meat they would sell for the day. Jose was the line was barely eight (8) to nine (9) feet (Exhibit "E"; See Exhibit "D-1")
very first to reach the parked jeepney. Grasping the handlebars at the rear entrance of which is in violation of the Philippine Electrical Code which requires a
the vehicle, and as he was about to raise his right foot to get inside, Jose suddenly minimum vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet from the level of the
stiffened and trembled as though suffering from an epileptic seizure. Romeo Pimienta ground since the wiring crosses a public street. Another violation according
who saw Jose thought he was merely joking but noticed almost in disbelief that he was to Cerezo, is that the main line connected to the service line was not of
already turning black. In no time the other vendors rushed to Jose and they discovered rigid conduit wiring but totally exposed without any safety protection (Ibid).
that the antenna of the jeepney bearing the pigs had gotten entangled with an open Worse, the open wire connections were not insulated (Ibid); See Exhibits
electric wire at the top of the roof of a meat stall. Pimienta quickly got hold of a "D-6", "D-6-A", "D-7"). The jeep's antenna which was more than eight (8)
broom and pried the antenna loose from the open wire. But shortly after, Jose released feet high (Exhibit "D-9") from the ground ( It is about six to seven feet long
his hold on the handlebars of the jeep only to slump to the ground. He died shortly in and mounted on the left fender which is about three feet above the ground)
the hospital. Cause of his death was "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to massive got entangled with the open wire connections (Exhibit "D-8"), thereby
brain congestion with petheccial hemorrhage, brain bilateral pulmonary edema and electrically charging its handlebars which Bernardo held on to enter the
congestion and endocardial petecchial hemorrhage and dilation (history of vehicle resulting in his electrocution.
 entangled with an open wire above the Dimasupil store. [5] But this line of defense
While Vedasto Augusto, an electrical engineer and the line superintendent in must be discarded. Canave's act of parking in an area not customarily used for that
the electrical department of the defendant BENECO, admitted that the purpose was by no means the independent negligent act adverted to by BENECO in
allowable vertical clearance of the service drop line is even 15 feet from the
citing Manila Electric Co. v. Ronquillo. [6] Canave was well within his right to park the
ground level and not only 14 feet, he and Jose Angeles, then an instrument
vehicle in the said area where there was no showing that any municipal law or
man or surveyor of the BENECO, insisted that BENECO installed (they do
ordinance was violated nor that there was any foreseeable danger posed by his act.
not know by whom in particular) from the Apollo Building nearby a service
One thing however is sure, no accident would have happened had BENECO installed
drop line carrying 220 volts which was attached to a G.I. pipe pole
the connections in accordance with the prescribed vertical clearance of fifteen (15)
(Exhibits "1" and "1-A"). The vertical clearance of the point of attachment
feet.
of the service drop line on the G.I. post to the ground is 15.5 feet (Exhibit
"1-B"), which is more than the allowable 15-foot clearance. To this service
Second. BENECO avers that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in awarding
drop line was connected the service entrance conductor (Exhibit "1-D") to
P864,000.00 as net income loss for the thirty (30) years remaining of the life
supply power inside the premises to be serviced through an electric meter.
expectancy of the deceased Jose Bernardo, albeit the trial court found no firm basis
At the lower portion of the splicing or connecting point between the service
for awarding this item of damages.
drop line and the service entrance conductor is a three to four-inch bare
wire to serve as a ground. They saw the bare wire because the splicing
We recall that the trial court disallowed the award for net loss income in view of the
point was exposed as it was not covered with tape (Exhibit "1-E"). The
alleged contradictory and untrustworthy testimony of the deceased's surviving spouse
antenna of the jeep which electrocuted Bernardo got entangled with this
Caridad Bernardo. Thus -
exposed splicing point.
As to lost earnings. The court finds the allegations of the plaintiffs,
Augusto claimed that it was not BENECO's job to splice or connect the particularly Caridad Bernardo contradictory and untrustworthy. While in
service entrance conductor to the service drop line but rather the owner of the complaint, which she herself verified, she asseverated that at the time
the premises to be serviced whose identity they did not, however, of his death on January 14, 1985, her late husband was earning no less
determine. than P150.00 daily after deducting personal expenses and household and
other family obligations; at the trial she bloated this up to P3,000.00 gross
Significantly, on cross-examination, Augusto admitted that the service drop daily or P300.00 profit a day or a net income of P200.00 daily after
line that BENECO installed did not end at the point to which it is attached deducting personal and household expenses. But inexplicably she could not
to the G.I. post. Rather, it passed through a spool insulator that is attached present the income tax return of her husband for 1983 and 1984 although
to the post (Exhibit "1-F") and extended down to where the service she stated that he had been filing such returns. What she submitted are his
entrance conductor is spliced with the result that the exposed splicing point income tax returns for 1981 and 1982 showing a much lower annual gross
(Exhibit "1-E") is only about eight (8) feet from the ground level. income of P12,960.00 and P16,120.00, respectively. The Court, therefore,
finds no firm basis for awarding this item of damages.
There is no question that as an electric cooperative holding the exclusive franchise in
supplying electric power to the towns of Benguet province, its primordial concern is In modifying the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals relied on the
not only to distribute electricity to its subscribers but also to ensure the safety of the testimony of Rosita Noefe, sister of the deceased, that her brother started as her
public by the proper maintenance and upkeep of its facilities. It is clear to us then that helper in the several meat stalls she operated until 1982 when she allowed Jose to
BENECO was grossly negligent in leaving unprotected and uninsulated the splicing operate one of her stalls as his own and gave him an initial capital of P15,000.00 to
point between the service drop line and the service entrance conductor, which add to his own. She explained that her brother sold from 100 to 150 kilos of pork and
connection was only eight (8) feet from the ground level, in violation of the Philippine 30 to 50 kilos of meat a day earning an income of about P150.00 to P200.00 pesos
Electrical Code. BENECO's contention that the accident happened only on January daily. After deducting his personal expenses and family obligations, Jose earned a daily
14, 1985, around seven (7) years after the open wire was found existing in 1978, far net income between P70.00 and P80.00. Jose Bernardo died of electrocution at the
from mitigating its culpability, betrays its gross neglect in performing its duty to the
age of thirty-three (33). Following the ruling in Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals[7]
public. [4] By leaving an open live wire unattended for years, BENECO demonstrated
its utter disregard for the safety of the public. Indeed, Jose Bernardo's death was an and Davila v. PAL[8]his life expectancy would allow him thirty and one third (30-1/3)
accident that was bound to happen in view of the gross negligence of BENECO. years more. Assuming on the basis of his P80.00 daily net income translated to
P2,400.00 monthly or P28,800.00 yearly, the net income loss for the thirty (30) years
BENECO theorizes in its defense that the death of Jose Bernardo could be attributed remaining of his life expectancy would amount to P864,000.00. [9]
to the negligence of Canave, Jr., in parking his jeepney so close to the market stall
which was neither a parking area nor a loading area, with his antenna so high as to get While we are of the opinion that private respondent Bernardo is entitled to indemnity
for loss of earning capacity of her deceased husband we however find that a Now, will you tell this court why you know more or less that
Q:
modification is in order. The amount corresponding to the loss of earning capacity is this is his daily income?
based mainly on two factors: (a) the number of years on the basis of which the I know it because I experienced it and I only transferred this
damages shall be computed; and, (b) the rate at which the losses sustained by the A:
stall to him.
widow and her children should be fixed. [10] And his income, you said, of 150 daily to 200 for the sale of
pork and meat will you know what are his family expenses
We consider that the deceased was married with three (3) children and thirty-three Q:
being your brother and is living with you in the same place at
(33) years old at the time of his death. By applying the formula: 2/3 x (80 - 33) = Life the slaughter house?
Expectancy, the normal life expectancy of the deceased would be thirty-one and one- A: About P70.00 to P80.00 a day.
third (31-1/3) years and not thirty (30) as found by the respondent court. By taking
into account the nature and quality of life of a meat vendor, it is hard to conceive that And what are the other income that your brother derive (sic)
Q:
Jose would still be working for the full stretch of the remaining thirty-one (31) years of aside from the meat stall after spending these daily expenses?
his life; and therefore it is but reasonable to make allowances and reduce his life A: None, sir.
expectancy to twenty-five (25) years. [11]

Anent the second factor, we are of the view that the Court of Appeals was correct in Contrary to the assertion of BENECO, there is ample basis for the fixing of damages
relying on the unrebutted testimony of Rosita Noefe concerning the income of Jose, incurred by the heirs of the deceased. Notwithstanding the failure of private
thus providing a basis for fixing the rate of damages incurred by the heirs of the respondent Bernardo to present documentary evidence to support her claim, the
deceased. Rosita clarified as follows: unrebutted testimony of Rosita Noefe supplied this deficiency. Indeed, there is no
reason to doubt the veracity of Rosita's testimony considering that she owned the very
same stall that Jose was operating and managing before his death. Her testimony on
Now you said that you brother's stall is just very near, about the earning capacity of Jose is enough to establish the rationale for the award.
Q: 4 to 5 meters away from your stall. Do you know more or
less how your brother was earning by way of income because The discrepancy between private respondent Bernardo's claims regarding her
the stall belongs also to you and your husband? husband's income as contained in the complaint, where she alleged that Jose was
earning no less than P150.00 a day, and her testimony during trial that he earned
A: Yes, sir (italics supplied). P300.00 daily, could not obviate the fact that at the time of his death Jose was earning
How much more or less would you say was his daily income a living as a meat vendor. Undoubtedly, his untimely death deprived his family of his
Q:
from the stall, if you know? potential earnings. The allegation in the complaint fixing his income at P150.00 a day
A: P150 to P200 more, sometimes more than P200. was corroborated by the unqualified declaration of Rosita Noefe that he was earning
Q: What is this? Monthly, daily, or what? P150.00 to P200.00 a day. Obviously the bloated figure of P300.00 given by private
A: Daily sir. respondent Bernardo was an afterthought perhaps impelled by the prospect of being
awarded a greater sum.
Now, when you said that he earns sometimes 150 or 200 in a
day can (sic) you tell this court more or less how many in We now fix Jose's daily gross income at P150.00 or his annual gross income at
Q:
terms of net or in terms of kilos that he can sell with that P54,000.00. After deducting personal expenses, household and other family
amount daily? obligations, we can safely assume that his annual net income at the time of death was
More than one hundred (100) kilos, sir, or one hundred fifty
A: P27,000.00 or 50% of his yearly gross earnings of P54,000.00. [12]
kilos (150).
By the way what was your brother selling also in that meat Accordingly, in determining the indemnity for the loss of earning capacity, we multiply
Q:
stall? the life expectancy of the deceased as reduced to twenty-five (25) years by the annual
A: Pork and beef, sir. net income of P27,000.00 which gives us P675,000.00. Therefore, we deduce that his
In terms of how many slaughter(ed) pigs would that be if you net earning capacity is P675,000.00 computed as follows:[13] Net Earning Capacity =
Q:
know? 100 to 150 kilo Life Expectancy x Gross Annual Income - Necessary Living Expenses. Reduced to
A: Two (2) pigs, sir. simpler form:
Q: Is this... How about meat, I mean, aside from pigs?
A: About thirty (30) to fifty (50) kilos for beef. Net Earning = Life x Gross Annual - Necessary
 Living failed to detect, much less to repair, for an inexcusably long period of seven (7) years
Capacity Expectancy Income
Expenses the uninsulated connection which caused the death of Jose Bernardo. The gravity of
= 2 (80 - 33) x (P54,000 - P27,000) its ineptitude was compounded when it installed the service drop line way below the
prescribed minimum vertical clearance of fifteen (15) feet. Again, precautionary
           3
measures were not taken in wanton disregard of the possible consequences. Under
= 31-1/3 these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the finding of respondent court
(reduced to 25) x 27,000 = 675,000.00 awarding exemplary damages to private respondent Bernardo in the amount of
=P675,000.00 NET INCOME LOSS P20,000.00.
(as reduced)
Finally, BENECO questions the grant of moral damages and attorney's fees on the
Third. BENECO contends that exemplary damages should not be awarded as the same ground of non-culpability. It is settled that moral damages are not intended to
amount claimed was not specified in the body nor in the prayer of the complaint, in enrich the complainant but to serve to obviate his/her spiritual suffering by reason of
contravention of the mandate in Rule 11 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines the culpable action of the defendant. Its award is aimed at the restoration of the
implementing BP 129 which requires the amount of damages to be specifically alleged spiritual status quo ante, and it must be commensurate to the suffering inflicted. As a
apparently for the purpose of computing the docket fees. result of the accidental death of Jose, his widow Caridad and their three (3) minor
children had to scrounge for a living in order to keep their heads above water. Caridad
BENECO's contention deserves no merit. The amount of exemplary damages need had to depend on the generosity of her relatives which came intermittently and far
not be pleaded in the complaint because the same cannot be predetermined. One can between and augment whatever she received from them with her meager income from
merely ask that it be fixed by the court as the evidence may warrant and be awarded her small business. She must have agonized over the prospect of raising her three (3)
small children all by herself given her unstable financial condition. For the foregoing
at its own discretion. [14] In fact, the amount of exemplary damages need not be
reasons, we sustain the award of moral damages by respondent court except as to the
proved because its determination is contingent upon or incidental to the amount of
amount thereof. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that moral damages in the
compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant. Moreover, this Court in
amount of P50,000.00 are more in accord with the injury suffered by private
a number of occasions ruled that the amount of docket fees to be paid should be
respondent and her children.
computed on the basis of the amount of the damages stated in the complaint. Where
subsequently however the judgment awarded a claim not specified in the pleading, or
As for attorney's fees, we find no legal nor factual basis to overturn the ruling of
if specified, the same was left for the determination of the court, an additional filing
respondent court on the matter; accordingly, the grant of P20,000.00 attorney's fees to
fee therefor may be assessed and considered to constitute a lien on the judgment. [15] private respondent Bernardo is adopted.
We are not unaware of the principle laid down in Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 5 November
Tagum[16]where the trial court was ordered to either expunge the unspecified claim for 1996 ordering petitioner Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc., to pay private respondent
exemplary damages or allow the private respondent to amend the complaint within a Caridad O. Bernardo as guardian ad litem for the minors Jojo, Jeffrey and Jo-an, all
reasonable time and specify the amount thereof and then pay the corresponding surnamed Bernardo, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, another P20,000.00 for
docket fees. However, we prefer not to expunge the claim for exemplary damages and attorney's fees, and P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Jose Bernardo, is
pursue the Tacay lead, for to delete the claim for exemplary damages would be to give AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the P864,000.00 as net income loss is
premium to BENECO's gross negligence while to order the amendment of the reduced to P675,000.00 and the P100,000.00 as moral damages is also reduced to
complaint would be to unjustly delay the proceedings and prolong further the almost P50,000.00.
fifteen-year agony of the intended beneficiaries.
Costs against petitioner.
Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good,
in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. It is awarded as SO ORDERED.
a deterrent to socially deleterious actions. In quasi-delict, exemplary damages are Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
awarded when the act or omission which caused injury is attended by gross
negligence. [17] Gross negligence has been defined as negligence characterized by the
want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to
act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to [1]CA-G.R. CV No. 4857, promulgated on 5 November 1996 by Justice Salome A.
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. [18] Montoya, ponente, concurred in by Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Maximiano C.
Asuncion.
In the instant case, there is a clear showing of BENECO's gross negligence when it