Case Digest (G.R. No. 102206)
Facts:
National Power Corporation and Benjamin Chavez v. The Court of Appeals, Lauro Palad, Jose Palad, Domingo Cruz, Emilia Mariano, Raymundo Palad and Francisco C. Torres, G.R. No. 102206, June 25, 1993, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
The private respondents (owners of parcels in Angat and Norzagaray, Bulacan) suffered extensive property losses when the towns near the Angat Dam were inundated during Typhoon “Kading” on the night of 26 October 1978 into the early morning of 27 October 1978. The respondents quantitated their claims (e.g., Lauro Palad P42,500; Jose Palad P59,900; Domingo Cruz P25,000; others similarly). After the petitioners rejected demands for payment, the private respondents filed suit on 25 October 1982 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. SM-1338 and raffled to Branch 22.
In their answer the petitioners pleaded they had taken precautions, maintained and operated the hydroelectric plant with due care, and had sent warnings on 24 October 1978; they also invoked force majeure, argued absence of causal relation (damnum absque injuria), asserted they acted in accordance with law and that the plaintiffs had the last clear chance to avoid damage, and pleaded laches. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on 18 June 1990 awarding actual damages to the plaintiffs (the amounts claimed), moral damages of P30,000 each with legal interest from promulgation, and attorney’s fees equal to 25% of whatever is collected.
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 27985). By decision dated 16 August 1991 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding of negligence and the award of actual damages, but deleted the award of moral damages for lack of malice and reduced attorney’s fees to a fixed P5,000. The CA grounded its finding of negligence primarily on the operational conduct at the dam: although forecasts showed the typhoon heading toward Central Luzon by 25 October, the petitioners delayed spilling water and only began opening spillway gates late on 26 October — petitioner Chavez purportedly sought permission to start opening at about 10:45 a.m. but did not receive approval until 5:40 p.m., and the actual spilling began about 9:00 p.m., reaching maximum openings by midnight; the unusually rapid rise of floodwaters between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. produced the damage.
A motion for reconsideration was denied on 2 October 1991. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court; private respondents filed a Comment on 18 May 1992 in compliance with the Court’s resolution, and the petition was given due course on 12 August 1992. The petition raised, in substance, that (1) prior decisions applying...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Can petitioners invoke force majeure or the Court’s prior rulings to escape liability for the inundation and damages despite the alleged negligence in operating the Angat Dam?
- Did the giving of written warning notices by petitioners absolve them from liability?
- Were the damages suffered by respondents merely damnum absque injuria and therefore noncompensable?
- Did the courts err in denying petitioners’ counterclaim fo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)