Case Summary (G.R. No. 103442-45)
Key Dates
• Inundation of Norzagaray: October 26–27, 1978
• Trial court decision (RTC, Bulacan): April 30, 1990
• Court of Appeals decision: August 19, 1991
• Supreme Court decision: May 21, 1993
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (government suability under corporate charter)
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1170 (liability for breach of obligation) and Article 1174 (force majeure)
• Revised Rules of Court, Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari)
• NPC Charter provisions on capacity to sue and be sued
Case Background
Four separate complaints were filed between December 1978 and January 1982 seeking actual and moral damages, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs alleged that NPC and Chavez negligently maintained reservoir levels above the safe maximum headwater elevation and suddenly opened three spillway gates during Typhoon “Kading,” discharging approximately 4,500 cubic meters of water per second and causing a flash flood that drowned residents and washed away livestock and property.
Trial Court Proceedings
The NPC raised a special defense that its charter did not contemplate tort liability, prompting a preliminary hearing. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 5, Bulacan) dismissed the complaints as to NPC, holding that its capacity to be sued did not extend to tort actions. This ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court, reinstating the complaints. After consolidation, the RTC dismissed all complaints for lack of sufficient and credible evidence on April 30, 1990. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision
On August 19, 1991, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s dismissal and rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents. It held petitioners jointly and severally liable for actual and moral damages, litigation expenses (₱10,000 per case), and attorney’s fees amounting to 15% of the total awards. No costs were imposed.
Findings of Negligence
The appellate court found a “patent, gross, and evident lack of foresight, imprudence, and negligence” in dam management. Key factual findings included:
- Knowledge of Typhoon “Kading” as early as October 21, 1978, through newspapers and radio.
- Reservoir water elevation already at or above the safe maximum of 217 meters on October 24–26, 1978.
- Minimal spillway openings (1–2 meters) until midnight of October 26–27, when openings were increased abruptly from 5 up to 14.5 meters.
- Release of stored water, not merely rainwater, as the proximate cause of the flash flood.
Warning Notice and Its Deficiencies
Petitioners relied on a written notice dated October 24, 1978, warning municipalities of intermittent water releases and advising vigilance. The Court of Appeals deemed this notice ineffective because:
• It was addressed generically “To All Concern” and delivered on October 26 to a municipal policeman rather than to responsible officials.
• It failed to specify the magnitude or timing of the eventual water release that would have necessitated evacuation.
• In some affected towns, no notice was served at all.
Force Majeure Defense
Petitioners argued that the flood resulted from an irresistible act of nature or fortuitous event (force majeure), thus constituting damnum absque injuria. Relying on Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals (144 SCRA 596), the appellate court held that the defense of force majeure is unavailable where human negligence or contributory fault intervenes. Because petitioners’ imprudence and failure to maintain safe reservoir levels concurred with the typhoon, they could not escape liability.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. It held that:
- The findings of fact on negligence by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding in the absence of any recognized exception.
- NPC’s charter allows suit for torts; its status as a government-owned corporation does not confer immunity from liability for negligence under the 1987 Constitution and applicable sta
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 103442-45)
Facts of the Case
- National Power Corporation (NPC) operated and maintained a multi-purpose hydroelectric plant in the Angat River at Hilltop, Norzagaray, Bulacan.
- Benjamin L. Chavez was the plant supervisor at the time of the incident.
- As early as 24 October 1978, defendants knew of the impending entry of Typhoon “Kading.”
- Despite knowledge of rising water levels, defendants maintained reservoir elevation beyond its maximum safe limit.
- On the night of 26 October and early hours of 27 October 1978, defendants suddenly and negligently opened three spillways, releasing approximately 4,500 cubic meters of water per second.
- The flood inundated the banks of the Angat River, drowning household members, livestock, and washing away properties in Norzagaray and adjacent municipalities.
Complaints and Allegations
- Four separate complaints (Civil Case Nos. SM-950, SM-951, SM-953, SM-1247) were filed by private respondents for actual and other damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligence in monitoring water levels and reckless opening of spillways.
- They claimed loss of lives, destruction of property, and sought actual, moral damages, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees.
Defendants’ Responses and Special Defense
- NPC asserted it exercised due care, diligence, and prudence in plant operation and employee selection.
- Written notices warning of water releases were allegedly sent to affected municipalities advising residents to take precautions.
- Defendants contended water release was necessary to prevent dam collapse and greater damage.
- Pleaded force majeure (act of God) and damnum absque injuria; argued damages resulted from an unavoidable event beyond their control.
- Asserted that NPC, performing a purely governmental function, could not be sued in tort.
Trial Court Proceedings
- On defendants’ motion, the trial court conducted a preliminary hearing on the special defense and dismissed the complaints against NPC for lack of tort jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court overruled this dismissal and orde