Case Summary (G.R. No. 125018)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: REMMAN sought relief from adverse findings and awards of damages and attorney’s fees imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Respondent: Lat pursued damages and injunctive relief for destruction of crops and lost profits due to alleged pollution and overflow from REMMAN’s piggery lagoons.
Key Dates and Procedural Events
Relevant incidents and proceedings: overflow observed by Lat beginning about July 1984 (with contaminated flow from June 1984 to March 1985), complaint filed by Lat on 14 March 1985 for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction, and prior interlocutory proceedings concerning a subpoena duces tecum for Lat’s income tax returns resolved by appellate action referenced in earlier decisions cited in the record.
Applicable Law and Legal Authorities
Primary legal framework applied by the courts: (1) Civil Code provisions on natural easements (Art. 637); (2) Water Code provisions governing natural flow of waters (Art. 50); (3) controlling jurisprudence cited (e.g., National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, as quoted); and, consistent with the decision date being in 2000, the 1987 Philippine Constitution was the constitutional framework applicable to the decision.
Trial Court Findings
The Regional Trial Court, after conducting an ocular inspection with representatives of both parties present, found that REMMAN’s lagoon overflowed and contaminated water flowed continuously onto Lat’s land. The overflow produced ankle-deep polluted water that flooded approximately one hectare of Lat’s plantation and caused the death or destruction of specified trees and crops (1 jackfruit, 15 coconut, 122 coffee trees, and unspecified mango, banana and vegetable plants). The trial court awarded Lat P186,975.00 for lost profits covering three crop years and P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals’ Disposition
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions in toto. It specifically found negligence on REMMAN’s part as the proximate cause of damage, reasoning that Lat’s property had become a catch-basin for polluted waste that could have been prevented but for REMMAN’s failures (failure to monitor lagoon levels, failure to augment lagoon capacity despite increased herd size, and failure to comply with promises to mitigate the problem).
Issues Raised by the Petitioner to the Supreme Court
REMMAN challenged the factual findings and awards on multiple grounds: asserting that the lower courts’ findings were speculative or unsupported; contesting the denial of its subpoena duces tecum for Lat’s income tax returns; arguing that Lat failed to satisfactorily establish damages; and claiming that the damage resulted from a fortuitous event or natural easement, which would relieve REMMAN of liability.
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review on Factual Findings
The Supreme Court reiterated the narrow circumstances under which it will disturb factual findings of lower courts (e.g., findings based entirely on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension or overlooking of undisputed material facts). The Court found that none of these exceptional circumstances existed in this case and therefore the lower courts’ factual findings warranted deference.
Liability and Negligence Analysis
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that REMMAN’s liability was clearly established by the evidence and ocular inspection showing continuous discharge of acidic, malodorous and polluted water from REMMAN’s piggery into Lat’s land, resulting in measurable destruction. The Court adopted the Court of Appeals’ articulation of REMMAN’s negligent acts: (a) failure to monitor lagoon levels before, during and after heavy rains; (b) failure to expand or augment waste facilities despite a significant herd increase to approximately 11,000 heads and foreseeable insufficiency of existing lagoons; and (c) failure to honor promises made to prevent overflow. Those failures were held to be proximate causes of the damages.
Production of Income Tax Returns and Evidentiary Rulings
REMMAN’s contention that Lat’s income tax returns (years 1982–1986) should have been produced to disprove damages was rejected. The Supreme Court noted prior appellate rulings addressing the subpoena duces tecum and agreed that tax returns would not necessarily demonstrate the specific losses attributable to the portion of Lat’s plantation that was flooded. Tax returns could mask or offset losses with other income and therefore would not reliably prove or disprove the special damages claimed for the damaged parcel.
Establishment of Damages
The Supreme Court found that damages were adequately established. The trial court had conducted an ocular inspection, prepared an inventory of dead and damaged trees, and relied on Lat’s testimony concerning approximate annual harvests and fair market values. REMMAN presented no controverting evidence to challenge the inventory or valuation. Given the unrefuted evidence and the advantage of the trial court’s direct observation, the Court upheld the award of P186,975.00 for lost profits for three crop years and P30,000.00 attorney’s fees.
Act of God / Fortuitous Event Argument
REMMAN’s claim that heavy rains (a fortuitous event) c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 125018)
Background and Parties
- Parties: Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN), petitioner, and Crispin E. Lat (Lat), respondent; the Court of Appeals is a respondent in the petition for review.
- Representation of lands: REMMAN and Lat are adjoining landowners in Barangay Bugtong Na Pulo, Lipa City.
- Description of lands and uses:
- Lat’s land: contains an area of 1.8 hectares; agricultural; planted mostly with fruit trees.
- REMMAN’s land: occupies fifteen (15) hectares; six (6) hectares devoted to a piggery business.
- Relative elevation: REMMAN’s land is one and a half (1AA12) meters higher in elevation than that of respondent Lat.
Chronology of Events and Factual Background
- July 1984: Lat noticed REMMAN’s waste disposal lagoon was overflowing and inundating one-fourth (1/4) of Lat’s plantation; Lat made repeated representations to REMMAN which were unheeded.
- By 14 March 1985: Almost one (1) hectare of Lat’s plantation was inundated with water containing pig manure; trees on the flooded portion started to wither and die.
- Period of overflow: The overflow of "acidic, malodorous and polluted water" continued from June 1984 to March 1985.
- Physical conditions during ocular inspection: Waste water was ankle-deep and had flooded one (1) hectare of Lat’s plantation.
- Documented destruction: Death and destruction to one (1) jackfruit tree, fifteen (15) coconut trees, one hundred twenty-two (122) coffee trees, and an unspecified number of mango trees, bananas and vegetables.
Procedural History
- Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Lipa City; Civil Case No. V-408): Conducted ocular inspection; found REMMAN’s waste disposal lagoon overflowed and caused damage to Lat’s plantation; ordered indemnity for damages and attorney’s fees. Decision penned by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas. (RTC Records, pp. 539-559.) [1]
- Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV 37720): Affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. Decision penned by Justice Oswaldo D. Agcoaili, concurred in by Justices Justo P. Torres, Jr., and Eubulo G. Verzola. (CA Records, pp. 144-162.) [2]
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 125018, April 06, 2000): REMMAN sought review of factual findings and rulings by the lower courts. Supreme Court decision penned by Bellosillo, J.
Issues Presented on Petition for Review
- Whether factual findings of lower courts could be reviewed and reversed by the Supreme Court under the circumstances invoked by REMMAN.
- Whether REMMAN’s liability for damages suffered by Lat was clearly established.
- Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in quashing the subpoena duces tecum compelling Lat to produce income tax returns (years 1982–1986).
- Whether the damages awarded to Lat were satisfactorily established.
- Whether the damages, if any, were due to a fortuitous event (act of God) or natural easement entitling REMMAN to avoid liability.
REMMAN’s Contentions and Grounds for Revisiting Factual Findings
- REMMAN argued that factual findings of lower courts may be reviewed and reversed when:
- (a) the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
- (b) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
- (c) there is grave abuse of discretion;
- (d) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
- (e) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant undisputed facts which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion;
- (f) the conclusions of the Court of Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record;
- (g) facts of substance were overlooked which, if correctly considered, might have changed the outcome;
- (h) the findings of the Court of Appeals are not in accord with what reasonable men would readily accept as correct inferences from the evidence. [3]
Supreme Court’s Threshold Determination on Reviewability
- The Supreme Court acknowledged that, in the enumerated instances, factual findings may be revisited.
- The Court examined the record and found the enumerated instances (a)–(h) unavailing on the facts of this case.
- On that basis alone, the petition was dismissible; nevertheless, the Court proceeded to discuss the contentions substantively to dispose of REMMAN’s contentions finally.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Liability and Causation
- The Supreme Court disagreed with REMMAN’s contention that liability for damages was not clearly established.
- E