Napocor vs. CA, GR No. 124378, March 8, 2005 (FCD)

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS


(Ninth Division), HADJI ABDUL CARIM ABDULLAH, CARIS ABDULLAH, HADJI ALI
LANGCO and DIAMAEL PANGCATAN, respondents, G.R. No. 124378. March 8, 2005,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

DOCTRINE: In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages, which are
the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary
that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

FACTS: Private respondents Hadji Abdul Carim Abdullah and Caris Abdullah were owners of
fishponds in Barangay Bacong, Municipality of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, while private
respondents Hadji Ali Langco and Diamael Pangcatan had their fishponds built in Poona-
Marantao, also in the same province. All of these fishponds were sited along the Lake Lanao
shore. Private respondents have spent substantial amounts to construct, maintain, and stock
their respective fishponds with fish fingerlings, and make plantings along the adjoining foreshore
areas between 1984 and 1986.

In October and November of 1986, all the improvements were washed away when the water level
of the lake escalated and the subject lakeshore area was flooded. Private respondents blamed
the inundation on the Agus Regulation Dam built and operated by the NPC in 1978. They
theorized that NPC failed to increase the outflow of water even as the water level of the lake rose
due to the heavy rains.

Thus, in December of 1986, the private respondents, except for Caris Abdullah, wrote separate
letters to the NPC’s Vice-President, a certain “R.B. Santos,” who was based in Ditucalan, Iligan
City. They sought assistance and compensation for the damage suffered by each of them.

The private respondents’ pleas were shorn off by NPC on the ground that it was mandated under
Memorandum Order No. 398 dated 15 November 1973 to build the dam and maintain the normal
maximum lake level of 702 meters, and that since its operation in 1978, the water level never
rose beyond 702 meters. Furthermore, NPC retorted that visible monuments and benchmarks
indicating the 702-meter elevation had been established around the lake from 1974 to 1983.

Private respondents filed a complaint for damages before the RTC and alleged the negligence and
inexperience of NPC’s employees which is the proximate causes of the damage caused to their
properties and livelihood. They prayed for damages corresponding to the cost of their lost fishes
plus value of the destroyed fishpond and the expenses and the fishes thereof. Also, they asked
for reimbursement of necessary expenses as may be proved in the trial, moral and exemplary
damages, and the costs. NPC denied the allegations stated by the private respondents.

The trial court created a committee composed of representatives of both parties to conduct an
ocular inspection of the dam and its surrounding areas. On 29 July 1991, the trial court rendered
a Decision in favor of the private respondents. Unflinched, the petitioner appealed to the CA
which affirmed the decision with modification on the award of damages. Motion for
reconsideration was filed but was also denied.

ISSUE: Is NPC liable for the damages?

RULING: Yes, NPC is liable for the damages. The Court denied the instant petition and affirmed
the decision of the CA to award temperate or moderate damages in reduced amounts to private
respondents.

Before the construction of the Agus Regulation Dam across the Agus River just beyond the
Marawi City Bridge, no report of damages to landowners around the lake was ever heard. After
its construction and when it started functioning in 1978, reports and complaints of damages
sustained by landowners around the lake due to overflooding became widespread.

During the ocular inspection conducted by the lower court where representatives of both parties
were present, it was established that in the subject areas, the benchmarks as pointed out by the
NPC representative, could not be seen nor reached because they were totally covered with water.
An application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, comes to fore. Where
the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation
by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Petitioner would entice this Court to believe that private respondents brought the catastrophe
upon themselves by constructing their fishponds below the 702-meter level in defiance of
Memorandum Order No. 398. Yet, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the subject fishponds
were situated at an area below the 702-meter level yardstick.

Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict.” In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages, which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that
such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

In the case at bar, both the appellate court and the trial court uniformly found that it was such
negligence on the part of NPC which directly caused the damage to the fishponds of private
respondents. The degree of damages suffered by the latter remains unrebutted and there exists
adequate documentary evidence that the private respondents did have fishponds in their
respective locations and that these were inundated and damaged when the water level escalated
in October 1986.

You might also like