View full case

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

The National Power Corporation (NPC) and Benjamin Chavez filed a petition for review on certiorari to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case stemmed from four separate complaints for damages filed against the NPC and Chavez by private respondents. The private respondents sought compensation for the loss of lives and destruction of property due to the flooding of Norzagaray, Bulacan. They claimed that the defendants negligently released water through the spillways of the Angat Dam. On the other hand, the defendants argued that they exercised due care and diligence in operating and maintaining the hydroelectric plant. They contended that the damages were caused by a fortuitous event. Initially, the trial court dismissed the complaints against the NPC. However, this decision was eventually reversed by the Supreme Court. After the trial, the trial court dismissed the complaints due to insufficient and unreliable evidence. Conversely, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and awarded damages to the private respondents.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioners are liable for the damages caused by the flash flood.

  2. Whether or not the notice sent by the petitioners to the affected towns was sufficient.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the ruling of Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals and holding that the petitioners were guilty of negligence.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the written notices of warning issued by petitioners were insufficient.

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the damage suffered by private respondents was not damnum absque injuria.

  6. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding the counterclaim of petitioners for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

  7. Whether or not the petitioners' petitions raised substantial constitutional questions warranting the exercise of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

  8. Whether or not the petitioners' cause of action has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING:

  1. The petitioners are liable for the damages caused by the flash flood. The Court of Appeals concluded that the flash flood was caused by the sudden and simultaneous release of stored water from the Angat Dam by the petitioners. The Court held that the petitioners knew of the impending typhoon and should have prepared the dam by maintaining a water elevation that would allow room for the expected torrential rain. The Court found that the petitioners maintained a reservoir water elevation beyond its maximum and safe level, giving no sufficient allowance for the reservoir to contain the rainwater brought by the typhoon. Based on these findings, the Court held that the flash flood was caused by the petitioners' negligence and carelessness.

  2. The notice sent by the petitioners to the affected towns was not sufficient. The Court of Appeals rejected the petitioners' defense that they had sent early warning notices to the towns. The Court found that the notice delivered to the towns was ineffectual, insufficient, and inadequate because it did not prepare or warn the residents for the volume of water to be released, which turned out to be of such magnitude that residents near or along the Angat River should have been advised to evacuate. The Court held that the notice addressed “TO ALL CONCERN” was not addressed and delivered to the proper and responsible municipal officials who could have disseminated the warning to the residents directly affected.

  3. The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that the proximate cause of the loss and damage sustained by the private respondents was the negligence of the petitioners. The Court also affirmed the finding of the Court of Appeals that the written notices of warning issued by the petitioners were insufficient. The Court held that the damage suffered by the private respondents was not damnum absque injuria as there was negligence on the part of the petitioners. Finally, the Court did not award the counterclaim of the petitioners for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

  4. The Supreme Court affirms its previous decision, with costs against the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Negligence and carelessness can make a person or entity liable for damages caused by such negligence or carelessness.

  • A notice must contain sufficient information to enable the recipients to adequately respond and take necessary precautions.

  • To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code for a breach of obligation due to force majeure, the cause of the breach must be independent of the will of the debtor, the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable, the event must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner, and the debtor must be free from any participation in or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.

  • When the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, one must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which the loss or damage may have been occasioned.

  • The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving substantial constitutional questions.

  • A cause of action may be rendered moot and academic if events have occurred that would make it impossible for the court to grant the reliefs prayed for.