Topic ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTUAL LIABILITY: FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE

Case No. G.R. No. 103442-45 / May 21, 1993

Case Name NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. CA
Ponente DAVIDE, JR., j.

RELEVANT FACTS

 4 separate complaints for damages were filed against NPC and Benjamin Chavez (plant supervisor)
before the trial court. The plaintiffs therein sought to recover actual and other damages for the loss of
lives and the destruction of property caused by the flooding of the town of Norzagaray, Bulacan on Oct.
26-27, 1978. It was allegedly caused by the negligent release of water by NPC through the spillways of
Angat Dam.
 Lower court dismissed the complaints for lack of sufficient and credible evidence but the CA reversed.
 The facts of the case showed that:
1. As early as Oct. 21, 1978, NPC and Chavez knew of the imminent danger posed by typhoon Kading. It
was in the newspapers and radio.
2. They knew that Angat Dam can safely hold a normal maximum headwater elevation of 217 meters.
But despite such knowledge, they maintained a water elevation even beyond its max and safe level.
There was no sufficient allowance to contain the rain water that will be brought by the coming
typhoon.
3. Oct. 24 – Kading entered the PAR; water elevation ranged from 217.61 to 217.53 with very little
opening of the spillways, ranging from ½ to 1 meter.
4. Oct. 25 – storm signal No. 1 was hoisted over Bulacan at 10:45AM, later raised to No. 2 at 4:45PM
and No. 3 at 10:45PM. Water elevation still remained at its max level of 217.47 to 2187.57 with very
little opening of the spillways ranging from ½ to 1 m.
5. Oct. 26 – storm signal remained at No. 3. The water elevation still remained at max level of 217 to
218 with very little opening of the spillways ranging from ½ to 2 m. At about midnight, the spillways
were suddenly opened at 5 m, then increasing swiftly to 8, 10, 12, 12.5, 13, 13.5, 14, 14.5 in the
early morning hours of Oct. 27, releasing water at the rate of 4,500 cubic meters per second.
 CA held that the flash flood on Oct. 27 was not caused by the rain waters but by the stored waters
suddenly released from the Angat Dam. It found NPC and Chavez guilty of a patent gross and evident
lack of foresight, imprudence and negligence in the management and operation of the dam. The
unholiness of the hour, the extent of the opening of the spillways, and the magnitude of the water
released are all products of their carelessness. The flash flood would have been avoided if they prepared
the dam by maintaining in the first place a water elevation which would allow room for the expected
rains.
 NPC argued that it sent early warning written notices but the CA rejected this. The notices were not
addressed and delivered to the proper and responsible officials who could have disseminated the
warning to the residents directly affected.
 NPC also claimed that the incident was caused by force majeure and that they are not liable for any kind
of damage. This was also rejected by the CA.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

 Issue Ratio
W/N petitioners are guilty of YES
negligence?
1. SC said that it already decided in the previous case entitled National
Power Corp., et al. vs. CA (July 3, 1992) that the proximate cause of the
loss and damage sustained by the plaintiffs therein – who were similarly
situated as the private respondents in this case – was the negligence of
the petitioners, and that the “early warning notice” supposedly sent to
the affected municipalities was insufficient.

2. SC stated that it cannot now rule otherwise not only because such a
decision binds this Court with respect to the cause of the inundation of
the town but also because of the fact that on the basis of its meticulous
analysis and evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, CA
conclusively established that indeed petitioners were guilty of negligence
in the management and operation of the dam.

W/N the incident was caused NO.

by force majeure?
1. For a breach of an obligation due to an “act of God,” the ff. 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
(d) The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of
the injury to the creditor.

2. In this case, the Court held that petitioners cannot invoke force majeure
to escape liability for the loss or damage sustained by private
respondents since they were guilty of negligence. The event was not
occasioned exclusively by force majeure; a human factor – negligence –
had intervened.

3. The whole occurrence was humanized and hence removed from the laws
applicable to acts of God.

RULING

WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Consolidated Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 27290-93 is AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners.