NPC Liable for Electrocution Death: Duty to Maintain Safe Transmission Lines

The Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan (G.R. No. 165969) affirms that power companies have a strict duty to maintain their transmission lines at safe heights. The case arose from the electrocution death of a 19-year-old pocket miner in Benguet, who died after a bamboo pole he was carrying touched a sagging 69-kilovolt wire. The ruling clarifies when contributory negligence applies and how damages for wrongful death are computed.

The Facts of the Case

In the 1970s, the National Power Corporation installed high-tension transmission lines traversing a trail in Dalicno, Itogon, Benguet. Over time, the lines sagged to only eight to ten feet above the ground—far below the required clearance of 18 to 20 feet. The trail was the only viable route for residents, school children, and small-scale miners, and no warning signs were posted.

Community leaders wrote to NPC as early as 1991 and 1993 requesting repairs, but the company failed to act. On June 27, 1995, Noble Casionan was walking along the trail carrying a 14-foot bamboo pole on his shoulder. As he turned a curve, the pole’s tip touched a dangling wire. He was electrocuted and died instantly.

The Issue Before the Court

NPC argued that the victim was contributorily negligent for carrying the pole under the wires and for engaging in pocket mining, which was prohibited without a permit. The company asked the Court to delete or reduce the damages awarded by the lower courts.

The Ruling: No Contributory Negligence

The Supreme Court rejected NPC’s defense. The Court held that the sagging wires were “an accident waiting to happen.” If the lines had been properly maintained at the required height, the bamboo pole would never have touched them.

On contributory negligence, the Court defined it as conduct by the injured party that falls below the standard required for his own protection and that contributes as a legal cause to his injury. Here, the victim was simply doing what was ordinary routine for workers in the area. The trail was regularly used, there were no warning signs, and it was the only viable path—the other side was a precipice.

The Court also addressed NPC’s argument that the victim was an unlicensed pocket miner. Citing Añonuevo v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that a violation of a statute is not sufficient to establish contributory negligence unless the very injury that occurred was precisely what the statute intended to prevent. The lack of a mining permit had no causal connection to the electrocution. As the trial court observed, the fact that pocket miners lacked permits was “no justification for NPC to simply leave their transmission lines dangling.”

Damages Affirmed and Adjusted

The Court sustained the award of P50,000 as civil indemnity for death and P720,000 for loss of unearned income. The formula used was: net earning capacity equals two-thirds of (80 minus age at death) multiplied by gross annual income less necessary living expenses. The victim earned P3,000 monthly, and the Court deducted 50 percent for personal expenses, leaving P720,000 for his heirs.

Exemplary damages of P50,000 were upheld because NPC’s failure to act despite repeated warnings constituted gross negligence—a reckless disregard for the safety of the community. The Court reduced moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000, noting that such awards should compensate, not enrich. Attorney’s fees were deleted because the trial court failed to state its reason in the body of the decision.

Practical Takeaways

• Power companies must maintain safe clearances. Transmission lines must comply with required distances from the ground, and failure to do so constitutes negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
• Repeated warnings matter. Ignoring written requests for repairs strengthens a finding of gross negligence and supports exemplary damages under Article 2231.
• Contributory negligence requires causation. A victim’s unlawful act (such as unlicensed mining) does not reduce damages unless that act proximately caused the injury.
• Damages follow a fixed formula. Loss of earning capacity uses the life expectancy formula of 2/3 x (80 − age at death), with net earnings typically computed at 50 percent of gross income.
• Attorney’s fees need explanation. Courts must state the reason for awarding attorney’s fees in the body of the decision, not just in the dispositive portion.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.