CASE NO.
71
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL., petitioners, vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO C. RAYO, ET AL., respondents.
21 May 1993 | G.R. No. 103442-45
Davide, Jr. , J.
Digested by: Neil R. Soldevilla
FACTS:
On the evening of October 26, 1978, National Power Corporation (NPC) allegedly
caused the inundation of a town in Norzagaray, Bulacan when it released water through
the spillways of the Angat Dam at the height of typhoon “Kading” as the Dam’s water
level went beyond the maximum limit. The flooding resulted to the drowning of the
members of the household of Rayo, together with their animals and their properties
were also washed away. The release of water was made despite NPC’s knowledge of
the impending typhoon, as early as October 24 and its monitoring of the water level.
Rayo, et al., filed four separate complaints for damages against NPC.
Rayo claims that the flooding was purportedly caused by the negligent release of water
by the petitioners through the spillways of the Angat Dam (Hydroelectric Plant). It was
alleged that despite the petitioner's knowledge, as early as 24 October 1978, of the
impending entry of typhoon "Kading," they failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring
the water level at the dam. When the said water level went beyond the maximum
allowable limit at the height of the typhoon, the petitioners suddenly, negligently and
recklessly opened three (3) of the dam's spillways, thereby releasing a large amount of
water which inundated the banks of the Angat River and as a consequence, members
of the household of the respondents, together with their animals, drowned, and their
properties were washed away.
NPC argues that they exercised due care, diligence and prudence in the operation and
maintenance of the hydroelectric plant. NPC claimed that written notices were sent to
the different municipalities of Bulacan warning the residents therein about the
impending release of a large volume of water with the onset of typhoon "Kading" and
advise them to take the necessary precautions; that the water released during the
typhoon was needed to prevent the collapse of the dam and to avoid greater damage to
people and property and in spite of the precautions undertaken, they could still not
contain or control the flood. NPC further argues that the damages incurred by the
private respondents were caused by a fortuitous event or force majeure and are in the
nature and character of damnum absque injuria.
The lower court rendered its decision on April 30, 1990, dismissing the complaints "for
lack of sufficient and credible evidence.” However, in its joint decision promulgated on
August 19, 1991, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the lower
court, and awarded damages in favor of the private respondents.
ISSUE: Whether the damages incurred by respondents were due to a force majeure?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. It held that NPC
and Chavez were negligent primarily due to their failure to prepare adequately for
Typhoon “Kading” despite sufficient warnings, maintaining reservoir levels beyond safe
limits, and the insufficient and ineffective notice to municipalities about the water
release.
Under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, to exempt the obligor from liability for a breach of
an obligation due to an "act of God," the following must concur: (a) the cause of the
breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must
be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a moral manner; and (d) the debtor
must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. Thus,
if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a
corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of
the tenor of the obligation as provided for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results
in loss or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.
In the present case, the petitioners cannot be heard to invoke the act of God or force
majeure to escape liability for the loss or damage sustained by private respondents
since they, the petitioners, were guilty of negligence. The event then was not
occasioned exclusively by an act of God for a human factor (negligence or imprudence)
had intervened. Effective and sufficient warning and preparation are crucial in managing
disaster risk where the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
xx END OF DIGEST xx
