Rayo vs. Court of 1st Instance of Bulacan

G.R. No. L-55273-83
NPC, operating Angat Dam during Typhoon Kading, caused severe flooding, leading to deaths and property damage. Victims sued; Supreme Court ruled NPC liable under its "sue and be sued" charter clause.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-55273-83)

Facts:

Gaudencio Rayo et al. v. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, Sta. Maria, and National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 55273-83, December 19, 1981, Supreme Court Second Division, Abad Santos, J., writing for the Court.

At about midnight on October 26, 1978, during Typhoon "Kading," the plant superintendent of National Power Corporation (NPC), Benjamin Chavez, opened simultaneously all three floodgates of the Angat Dam; the sudden discharge inundated several towns in Bulacan, especially Norzagaray, causing many deaths and extensive property destruction. The victims — the petitioners here — filed eleven separate civil complaints for damages against NPC and Chavez, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. SM-950, 951, 953, 958, 959, 964, 965, 966, 981, 982 and 983 in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, Sta. Maria.

In its answers NPC admitted relevant matters generally but raised an affirmative defense that the operation of Angat Dam was a "purely governmental function" and that it could not be sued without the State's express consent. Petitioners opposed, invoking NPC’s charter provision that it may "sue and be sued in any court" under Republic Act No. 6395, Sec. 3(d). On December 21, 1979 the trial court granted the defense and dismissed all actions against NPC, reasoning that operation of the dam was governmental and that the charter's sue-and-be-sued clause did not extend to torts. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on October 3, 1980.

Petitioners filed a petition for review under Republic Act No. 5440 seeking reversal of the dismissal. The Solicitor General filed a comment after numerous extensions; the parties were ordered to file memoranda, but the Solicitor General’s memorandum was not filed despite multiple extensions. The parties agreed that the principal issues were whethe...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Did the National Power Corporation perform a governmental function in the management and operation of the Angat Dam such that it could not be sued for the alleged torts?
  • Does NPC’s charter power to "sue and be sued" under Republic Act No. 6395, Sec. 3(d) include the authority ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Philippine legal research, made clearer
AI-generated research aids. Verify with Full Text.