10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs.

Heirs of Casio

Title
National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 165969 Nov 27, 2008

A 19-year-old miner died from electrocution due to sagging high-tension wires. NPC
found grossly negligent for failing to address repeated safety warnings; damages upheld.

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 165969, November 27, 2008 ]

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN,

RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

REYES, R.T., J.:

PETITIONING power company pleads for mitigation of awarded damages on ground of

contributory negligence. But is the victim in this case partly to blame for his electrocution
and eventual demise?

This is a review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which found the
National Power Corporation (NPC) liable for damages for the death of Noble Casionan due
to electrocution from the company's high tension transmission lines.

The Facts

The facts, as found by the trial court are as follows:

Respondents are the parents of Noble Casionan, 19 years old at the time of the incident that
claimed his life on June 27, 1995. He would have turned 20 years of age on November 9 of
that year. Noble was originally from Cervantes, Ilocos Sur. He worked as a pocket miner in
Dalicno, Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet.

A trail leading to Sangilo, Itogon, existed in Dalicno and this trail was regularly used by

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 1/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

members of the community. Sometime in the 1970's, petitioner NPC installed high-tension
electrical transmission lines of 69 kilovolts (KV) traversing the trail. Eventually, some of the
transmission lines sagged and dangled reducing their distance from the ground to only
about eight to ten feet. This posed a great threat to passersby who were exposed to the
danger of electrocution especially during the wet season.

As early as 1991, the leaders of Ampucao, Itogon made verbal and written requests for NPC
to institute safety measures to protect users of the trail from their high tension wires. On
June 18, 1991 and February 11, 1993, Pablo and Pedro Ngaosie, elders of the community,
wrote Engr. Paterno Banayot, Area Manager of NPC, to make immediate and appropriate
repairs of the high tension wires. They reiterated the danger it posed to small-scale miners
especially during the wet season. They related an incident where one boy was nearly
electrocuted.

In a letter dated March 1, 1995, Engr. Banayot informed Itogon Mayor Cresencio Pacalso that
NPC had installed nine additional poles on their Beckel-Philex 60 KV line. They likewise
identified a possible rerouting scheme with an estimated total cost of 1.7 million pesos to
improve the distance from its deteriorating lines to the ground.

On June 27, 1995, Noble and his co-pocket miner, Melchor Jimenez, were at Dalicno. They
cut two bamboo poles for their pocket mining. One was 18 to 19 feet long and the other was
14 feet long. Each man carried one pole horizontally on his shoulder: Noble carried the
shorter pole while Melchor carried the longer pole. Noble walked ahead as both passed
through the trail underneath the NPC high tension transmission lines on their way to their
work place.

As Noble was going uphill and turning left on a curve, the tip of the bamboo pole he was
carrying touched one of the dangling high tension wires. Melchor, who was walking behind
him, narrated that he heard a buzzing sound when the tip of Noble's pole touched the wire
for only about one or two seconds. Thereafter, he saw Noble fall to the ground. Melchor
rushed to Noble and shook him but the latter was already dead. Their co-workers heard
Melchor's shout for help and together they brought the body of Noble to their camp.

A post-mortem examination by Dra. Ignacia Reyes Ciriaco, Municipal Health Officer of

Itogon, Benguet, determined the cause of death to be cardiac arrest, secondary to
ventricular fibulation, secondary to electrocution.2 She also observed a small burned area
in the middle right finger of the victim.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 2/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

Police investigators who visited the site of the incident confirmed that portions of the high
tension wires above the trail hung very low, just about eight to ten feet above the ground.
They noted that the residents, school children, and pocket miners usually used the trail and
had to pass directly underneath the wires. The trail was the only viable way since the other
side was a precipice. In addition, they did not see any danger warning signs installed in the
trail.

The elders and leaders of the community, through Mayor Cresencio Pacalso, informed the
General Manager of NPC in Itogon of the incident. After learning of the electrocution, NPC
repaired the dangling and sagging transmission lines and put up warning signs around the
area.

Consequently, the heirs of the deceased Noble filed a claim for damages against the NPC
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Benguet. In its answer, NPC denied being negligent
in maintaining the safety of the high tension transmission lines. It averred that there were
danger and warning signs installed but these were stolen by children. Excavations were
also made to increase the necessary clearance from the ground to about 17 to 18 feet but
some towers or poles sank due to pocket mining in the area.

At the trial, NPC witnesses testified that the cause of death could not have been
electrocution because the victim did not suffer extensive burns despite the strong 69 KV
carried by the transmission lines. NPC argued that if Noble did die by electrocution, it was
due to his own negligence. The company counter-claimed for attorney's fees and cost of
litigation.

RTC Disposition

On February 17, 1998, the RTC decided in favor of respondents. The fallo of its decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant NPC as follows:

1. Declaring defendant NPC guilty of Negligence (Quasi-Delict) in connection with the

death of Noble Casionan;

2. Ordering NPC as a consequence of its negligence, to pay the plaintiffs Jose and Linda
Casionan, as heirs of the deceased, Noble Casionan, the following Damages:

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 3/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

a. P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of their son Noble Casionan;

b. P100,000.00 as moral damages;

c. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

d. P52,277.50 as actual damages incurred for the expenses of burial and wake in
connection with the death of Noble Casionan;

e. P720,000.00 as the loss of unearned income; and

f. P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and the cost of suit; and

3. Dismissing the counter claim of the NPC for lack of merit.3

The RTC gave more credence to the testimony of witnesses for respondents than those of
NPC who were not actually present at the time of the incident. The trial court observed that
witnesses for NPC were biased witnesses because they were all employed by the company,
except for the witness from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). The RTC found:
Melchor Jimenez was very vivid in his account. He declared that he and Noble Casionan
cut two bamboo poles, one 14 feet and the other about 18 feet. The shorter bamboo pole was
carried by Noble Casionan and the longer bamboo pole was carried by him. And they
walked along the trail underneath the transmission lines. He was following Noble
Casionan. And when they were going uphill in the trail and Noble Casionan was to turn left
in a curve, the bamboo pole of Casionan swung around and its tip at the back touched for
one or two seconds or for a split moment the transmission line that was dangling and a
buzzing sound was heard. And Casionan immediately fell dead and simply stopped
breathing. What better account would there be than this? Melchor Jimenez was an eye
witness as to how it all happened.4 (Emphasis added)
The RTC ruled that the negligence of NPC in maintaining the high-tension wires was
established by preponderance of evidence. On this score, the RTC opined:

2. On the matter of whether plaintiffs have a cause of action against defendant NPC,
obviously, they would have. x x x This negligence of the NPC was well established and
cannot be denied because previous to this incident, the attention of NPC has already
been called by several requests and demands in 1991, 1993 and 1995 by elders and

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 4/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

leaders of the community in the area to the fact that their transmission lines were
dangling and sagging and the clearance thereof from the line to the ground was only 8
to 10 feet and not within the standard clearance of 18 to 20 feet but no safety measures
were taken. They did not even put danger and warning signs so as to warn persons
passing underneath.5 (Emphasis added)

Disagreeing with the ruling of the trial court, NPC elevated the case to the CA. In its appeal,
it argued that the RTC erred in ruling that NPC was liable for Noble's death. Further, even
assuming that Noble died of electrocution, the RTC erred in not finding that he was guilty of
contributory negligence and in awarding excessive damages.

CA Disposition

On June 30, 2004, the CA promulgated its decision, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that
the amount of moral damages is REDUCED to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00); and the
award of attorney's fees in the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) is DELETED.6
The CA sustained the findings of fact of the trial court but reduced the award of moral
damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. The CA further disallowed the award of
attorney's fees because the reason for the award was not expressly stated in the body of the
decision.

Issues

The following issues are presented for Our consideration: (i) Whether the award for
damages should be deleted in view of the contributory negligence of the victim; and (ii)
Whether the award for unearned income, exemplary, and moral damages should be deleted
for lack of factual and legal bases.[7]

Our Ruling

That the victim Noble died from being electrocuted by the high-tension transmission wires
of petitioner is not contested by petitioner. We are, however, asked to delete or mitigate the
damages awarded by the trial and appellate courts in view of what petitioner alleges to be
contributory negligence on the part of the victim.

As a rule, only questions of law may be entertained on appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 5/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

The finding of negligence on the part of petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the CA
is a question of fact which We cannot pass upon since it would entail going into factual
matters on which the finding of negligence was based.8 Corollary to this, the finding by
both courts of the lack of contributory negligence on the part of the victim is a factual issue
which is deemed conclusive upon this Court absent any compelling reason for Us to rule
otherwise.

But even if We walk the extra mile, the finding of liability on the part of petitioner must stay.

Petitioner contends that the mere presence of the high tension wires above the trail did not
cause the victim's death. Instead, it was Noble's negligent carrying of the bamboo pole that
caused his death. It insists that Noble was negligent when he allowed the bamboo pole he
was carrying to touch the high tension wires. This is especially true because other people
traversing the trail have not been similarly electrocuted.

Petitioner's contentions are absurd.

The sagging high tension wires were an accident waiting to happen. As established during
trial, the lines were sagging around 8 to 10 feet in violation of the required distance of 18 to
20 feet. If the transmission lines were properly maintained by petitioner, the bamboo pole
carried by Noble would not have touched the wires. He would not have been electrocuted.

Petitioner cannot excuse itself from its failure to properly maintain the wires by attributing
negligence to the victim. In Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,9 this Court
held that the responsibility of maintaining the rails for the purpose of preventing
derailment accidents belonged to the company. The company should not have been
negligent in ascertaining that the rails were fully connected than to wait until a life was lost
due to an accident. Said the Court:
In this petition, the respondent court is faulted for finding the petitioner guilty of
negligence notwithstanding its defense of due diligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
and for disallowing the deductions made by the trial court.

Investigation of the accident revealed that the derailment of the locomotive was caused by
protruding rails which had come loose because they were not connected and fixed in place
by fish plates. Fish plates are described as strips of iron 8" to 12" long and 3 A12" thick
which are attached to the rails by 4 bolts, two on each side, to keep the rails aligned.
Although they could be removed only with special equipment, the fish plates that should
have kept the rails aligned could not be found at the scene of the accident.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 6/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

There is no question that the maintenance of the rails, for the purpose, inter alia, of
preventing derailments, was the responsibility of the petitioner, and that this responsibility
was not discharged. According to Jose Reyes, its own witness, who was in charge of the
control and supervision of its train operations, cases of derailment in the milling district
were frequent and there were even times when such derailments were reported every
hour. The petitioner should therefore have taken more prudent steps to prevent such
accidents instead of waiting until a life was finally lost because of its negligence.10
Moreover, We find no contributory negligence on Noble's part.

Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
such other person suffers injury.11 On the other hand, contributory negligence is conduct
on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered,
which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection.12
There is contributory negligence when the party's act showed lack of ordinary care and
foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger.13 It is an act or
omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which,
concurring with the defendant's negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.14

The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly

responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must
bear the consequences of his own negligence.15 If indeed there was contributory
negligence on the part of the victim, then it is proper to reduce the award for damages. This
is in consonance with the Civil Code provision that liability will be mitigated in
consideration of the contributory negligence of the injured party. Article 2179 of the Civil
Code is explicit on this score:
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury,
he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
In Ma-ao Sugar Central, it was held that to hold a person as having contributed to his
injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in
disregard of warnings or signs on an impending danger to health and body. This Court held
then that the victim was not guilty of contributory negligence as there was no showing that
the caboose where he was riding was a dangerous place and that he recklessly dared to
stay there despite warnings or signs of impending danger.16

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 7/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

In this case, the trail where Noble was electrocuted was regularly used by members of the
community. There were no warning signs to inform passersby of the impending danger to
their lives should they accidentally touch the high tension wires. Also, the trail was the only
viable way from Dalicon to Itogon. Hence, Noble should not be faulted for simply doing
what was ordinary routine to other workers in the area.

Petitioner further faults the victim in engaging in pocket mining, which is prohibited by the
DENR in the area.

In AAonuevo v. Court of Appeals,17 this Court ruled that the violation of a statute is not
sufficient to hold that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the very
injury that happened was precisely what was intended to be prevented by the statute. In
said case, the allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the injured party who
violated traffic regulations when he failed to register his bicycle or install safety gadgets
thereon was struck down. We quote:
x x x The bare fact that Villagracia was violating a municipal ordinance at the time of the
accident may have sufficiently established some degree of negligence on his part, but such
negligence is without legal consequence unless it is shown that it was a contributing cause
of the injury. If anything at all, it is but indicative of Villagracia's failure in fulfilling his
obligation to the municipal government, which would then be the proper party to initiate
corrective action as a result. But such failure alone is not determinative of Villagracia's
negligence in relation to the accident.Negligence is relative or comparative, dependent
upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the particular
circumstances reasonably require. To determine if Villagracia was negligent, it is not
sufficient to rely solely on the violations of the municipal ordinance, but imperative to
examine Villagracia's behavior in relation to the contemporaneous circumstances of the
accident.

...

Under American case law, the failures imputed on Villagracia are not grievous enough so as
to negate monetary relief. In the absence of statutory requirement, one is not negligent as a
matter of law for failing to equip a horn, bell, or other warning devise onto a bicycle. In
most cases, the absence of proper lights on a bicycle does not constitute negligence as a
matter of law but is a question for the jury whether the absence of proper lights played a
causal part in producing a collision with a motorist. The absence of proper lights on a
bicycle at night, as required by statute or ordinance, may constitute negligence barring or
diminishing recovery if the bicyclist is struck by a motorist as long as the absence of such

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 8/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

lights was a proximate cause of the collision; however, the absence of such lights will not
preclude or diminish recovery if the scene of the accident was well illuminated by street
lights, if substitute lights were present which clearly rendered the bicyclist visible, if the
motorist saw the bicycle in spite of the absence of lights thereon, or if the motorist would
have been unable to see the bicycle even if it had been equipped with lights. A bicycle
equipped with defective or ineffective brakes may support a finding of negligence barring
or diminishing recovery by an injured bicyclist where such condition was a contributing
cause of the accident.

The above doctrines reveal a common thread. The failure of the bicycle owner to comply
with accepted safety practices, whether or not imposed by ordinance or statute, is not
sufficient to negate or mitigate recovery unless a causal connection is established between
such failure and the injury sustained. The principle likewise finds affirmation in Sanitary
Steam, wherein we declared that the violation of a traffic statute must be shown as the
proximate cause of the injury, or that it substantially contributed thereto. AAonuevo had the
burden of clearly proving that the alleged negligence of Villagracia was the proximate or
contributory cause of the latter's injury.18 (Emphasis added)
That the pocket miners were unlicensed was not a justification for petitioner to leave their
transmission lines dangling. We quote with approval the observation of the RTC on this
matter:
The claim of NPC that the pocket miners have no right to operate within the area of Dalicno,
Itogon, Benguet as there was no permit issued by DENR is beside the point. The fact is that
there were not only pocket miners but also there were many residents in the area of
Dalicno, Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet using the trail. These residents were using this trail
underneath the transmission lines x x x. They were using this trail even before the
transmission lines were installed in the 1970's by NPC. The pocket miners, although they
have no permit to do pocket mining in the area, are also human beings who have to eke out
a living in the only way they know how. The fact that they were not issued a permit by the
DENR to do pocket mining is no justification for NPC to simply leave their transmission
lines dangling or hanging 8 to 10 feet above the ground posing danger to the life and limb of
everyone in said community. x x x19 (Emphasis added)
In sum, the victim was not guilty of contributory negligence. Hence, petitioner is not
entitled to a mitigation of its liability.

II

We now determine the propriety of the awards for loss of unearned income, moral, and
exemplary damages.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 9/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

From the testimony of the victim's mother, it was duly established during trial that he was
earning P3,000.00 a month. To determine the compensable amount of lost earnings, We
consider (1) the number of years for which the victim would otherwise have lived (life
expectancy); and (2) the rate of loss sustained by the heirs of the deceased. Life expectancy
is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 - age at death]) adopted in the American
Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial Combined Experience Table of Mortality. The
second factor is computed by multiplying the life expectancy by the net earnings of the
deceased, i.e., the total earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or
income and less living and other incidental expenses. The net earning is ordinarily
computed at fifty percent (50%) of the gross earnings. Thus, the formula used by this Court
in computing loss of earning capacity is: Net Earning Capacity= [2/3 x (80 - age at time of
death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses)].20

We sustain the trial court computation of unearned income of the victim:

x x x the loss of his unearned income can be computed as follows: two-thirds of 80 years,
minus 20 years, times P36,000.00 per year, equals P1,440,000.00. This is because Noble
Casionan, at the time of his death, was 20 years old and was healthy and strong. And,
therefore, his life expectancy would normally reach up to 80 years old in accordance with
the above formula illustrated in the aforesaid cases. Thus, Noble Casionan had 60 more
years life expectancy since he was 20 years old at the time of his death on June 27, 1995.
Two-thirds of 60 years times P36,000.00 since he was earning about P3,000.00 a month of
P36,000.00 a year would be P1,440,000.00.

However, in determining the unearned income, the basic concern is to determine the
damages sustained by the heirs or dependents of the deceased Casionan. And here, the
damages consist not of the full amount of his earnings but the support they would have
received from the deceased had he not died as a consequence of the unlawful act of the
NPC. x x x The amount recoverable is not the loss of the entire earnings but the loss of that
portion of the earnings which the heirs would have received as support. Hence, from the
amount of P1,440,000.00, a reasonable amount for the necessary expenses of Noble
Casionan had he lived would be deducted. Following the ruling in People v. Quilaton, 205
SCRA 279, the Court deems that 50 percent of the gross earnings of the deceased of
P1,440,000.00 should be deducted for his necessary expenses had he lived, thus leaving
the other half of about P720,000.00 as the net earnings that would have gone for the
support of his heirs. This is the unearned income of which the heirs were deprived of.21
In quasi delicts, exemplary damages are awarded where the offender was guilty of gross
negligence.22 Gross negligence has been defined to be the want or absence of even slight

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 10/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property. It

evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them.23

Petitioner demonstrated its disregard for the safety of the members of the community of
Dalicno who used the trail regularly when it failed to address the sagging high tension
wires despite numerous previous requests and warnings. It only exerted efforts to rectify
the danger it posed after a death from electrocution already occurred. Gross negligence
was thus apparent, warranting the award of exemplary damages.

As to the award of moral damages, We sustain the CA reduction of the award. Moral
damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to
impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. It is not meant to enrich the complainant but to enable
the injured party to obtain means to obviate the moral suffering experience. Trial courts
should guard against the award of exorbitant damages lest they be accused of prejudice or
corruption in their decision making.24 We find that the CA correctly reduced the award
from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.

As for the award for attorney's fees, well-settled is the rule that the reason for the award
must be discussed in the text of the court's decision and not only in the dispositive
portion.25 Except for the fallo, a discussion on the reason for the award for attorney's fees
was not included by the RTC in its decision. The CA thus correctly disallowed it on appeal.

WHREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, and Nachura, JJ., concur.

1Rollo, pp. 46-58. CA-G.R. CV No. 59614. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De
Leon, with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring.

2 Id. at 83.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 11/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

3 Id. at 98.

4 Id. at 90.

5 Id. at 93.

6 Id. at 57.

7 Id. at 30.

8 Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, G.R. No. 160709, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 285.

9 G.R. No. 83491, August 27, 1990, 189 SCRA 88.

10 Id. at 91.

11 Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 991, 1002-1003 (1999).
(Citations omitted.)

12 Estacion v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144723, February 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 222, 234.

13 Id.

14 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 9, at 93.

15 Syki v. Begasa, 460 Phil. 381, 390-391 (2003).

16 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 9.

17 G.R. No. 130003, October 20, 2004, 441 SCRA 24.

18 AAonuevo v. Court of Appeals, id. at 40-43. (Citations omitted.)

19 Rollo, p. 95.

20Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, supra note 8, at 294; Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737,
June 16, 2004, 432 SCRA 329, 340-341.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 12/13
10/7/25, 10:32 PM National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Casio

21 Rollo, pp. 96-98.

22 Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2231.

23Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 331 Phil. 633,
641 (1996). (Citations omitted.)

24 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 499, 530 (1999).

25 Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, supra note 8, at 297.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/national-power-corp-v-heirs-of-casionan?q=NPC+vs+Casionan+GR165969+2008+case%3B 13/13