View full case

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

The National Power Corporation (NPC) and Benjamin Chavez, the Plant Superintendent of NPC, filed a petition for review on certiorari against the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court upheld the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, which granted damages, interest, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses to the private respondents. The damages were awarded due to losses and damages to their properties caused by a massive flood resulting from the reckless opening of the floodgates of the Angat Dam spillway during typhoon "Kading" in 1978. The private respondents argued that they were not given prior warning about the opening of the floodgates. NPCs and Chavez denied the allegations, maintaining that they kept the water level in the dam safe and opened the spillways gradually and with precautionary measures. They claimed that the damages suffered by the respondents were due to a fortuitous event and that the respondents assumed the risks of living near the river. The Court of Appeals found that the ruling in the case of Juan F. Nakpil & Sons, which states that an obligor cannot escape liability if there is negligence or a violation of the obligation upon the occurrence of a fortuitous event or act of God resulting in loss or damage, is applicable to this case. The petitioners raised several arguments, including the applicability of the Nakpil & Sons ruling, the sufficiency of written warnings sent by the petitioners, the nature of the damages suffered by the respondents, and the denial of their counterclaim for attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that even without a contractual relationship, the petitioners are still liable under the law on quasi-delict. The court also rejected the defense of force majeure, stating that the event should not only be unforeseeable but also unavoidable to invoke force majeure.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the doctrine laid down in Juan F. Nakpil & Sons is applicable to the present case, specifically on the liability of an obligor in case of force majeure.

  2. Whether the written notice of warning given by petitioners absolves them from liability.

  3. Whether the damages suffered by private respondents are damnum absque injuria.

  4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a counterclaim for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

RULING:

  1. The doctrine laid down in Juan F. Nakpil & Sons is applicable to the present case. The obligor cannot escape liability even in the presence of a force majeure, if there is corresponding fraud, negligence, delay, or violation of the tenor of the obligation.

  2. The written notice of warning given by petitioners does not absolve them from liability. They are still liable under the law on quasi-delict, which imposes liability for damages caused by fault or negligence.

  3. The damages suffered by private respondents are not damnum absque injuria. Article 2176 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that whoever causes damage to another through fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done.

  4. The petitioners are not entitled to a counterclaim for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The doctrine laid down in Juan F. Nakpil & Sons holds that an obligor cannot escape liability in the presence of force majeure if there is corresponding fault, negligence, delay, or violation of the obligation.

  • The law on quasi-delict imposes liability for damages caused by fault or negligence, regardless of the existence of a contractual relationship.

  • Damnum absque injuria refers to damages suffered without legal injury or wrong, and does not absolve the wrongdoer from liability for damages caused by fault or negligence.

  • The award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is not granted to the party who is not entitled to recover on its claim or counterclaim.