Rosario v. Manila Electric Company
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Julian del Rosario instituted an action to recover damages from Manila Electric Company for the death of his son, Alberto del Rosario, aged 9, who died from an electric shock sustained from a broken wire used by the defendant for transmitting electricity. The accident occurred on Dimas-Alang Street, Caloocan, Rizal. Procedural History: The trial court absolved the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. The Petition: The plaintiff sought to recover damages in the amount of P30,000.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant, Manila Electric Company, was negligent in maintaining its electric wire. Whether the deceased, Alberto del Rosario, was guilty of contributory negligence. Whether the defendant is liable for damages.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed. The plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the sum of P1,250, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the defendant, Manila Electric Company, was negligent in maintaining its electric wire: The Court held that the presumption of negligence on the part of the company from the breakage of the wire was not overcome. The company had notice of the trouble at 2:25 p.m. when the wire was still intact but burning and smoking. Despite this notice, no inspector was dispatched until after 3:30 p.m., more than an hour and a half later, during which time the accident occurred. The Court emphasized that upon receiving such notice, the company should have immediately dispatched someone to the scene or taken other measures to guard the danger point. The general inspection policy was deemed insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence arising from the wire's breakage and the subsequent accident. On Whether the deceased, Alberto del Rosario, was guilty of contributory negligence: The Court expressed doubt as to whether contributory negligence could be properly imputed to the deceased due to his immature age (9 years) and the natural curiosity of a child. The mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of tender age did not, in the Court's opinion, alter the case. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that contributory negligence could be imputed to some extent, the Court noted that not all members of the Court agreed on this proposition. However, even if it were present, such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action, as it was not the determining cause of the accident, citing the precedent in Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co.. On Whether the defendant is liable for damages: The Court found the defendant responsible for the accident. The presumption of negligence was not overcome, and the company's delay in responding to the notice of trouble was a critical factor. The Court awarded P250 for expenses incurred in connection with the death and burial and P1,000 as general damages for loss of service, totaling P1,250, based on established precedents.
Main Doctrine
A public utility company is presumed negligent when a wire used for transmitting electricity breaks, and this presumption is not overcome by mere general inspection if the company fails to dispatch personnel promptly upon receiving notice of trouble, especially when such failure leads to an accident. Contributory negligence of a minor, if present, does not wholly defeat the action if it was not the determining cause of the accident.