NPC v CA (2005)
[G.R. No. 124378. March 8, 2005]
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.
FACTS:
Office of the President of the Philippines issued Memorandum Order No. 398 - “Prescribing Measures to Preserve the Lake Lanao Watershed, To Enforce the Reservation of Areas Around the Lake Below Seven Hundred And Two Meters Elevation, and for Other Purposes.” Said decree instructed the NPC to build the Agus Regulation Dam at the mouth of Agus River in Lanao del Sur, at a normal maximum water level of Lake Lanao at 702 meters elevation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner built and operated the said dam in 1978.
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.
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.
Respondents 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. NPC retorted that visible monuments and benchmarks indicating the 702-meter elevation had been established around the lake from 1974 to 1983, which should have served as a warning to the private respondents not to introduce any improvements below the 702-meter level as this was outlawed.
Left with no other recourse, the private respondents filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Marawi City
DECISION OF LOWER COURT:
(1) RTC – Marawi City: judgment is hereby rendered in favor of respondents. (2) CA: affirmed RTC.
ISSUE:
whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s verdict that petitioner was legally answerable for the damages endured by the private respondents.
RULING:
No, NPC is liable.
With respect to its job to maintain the normal maximum level of the lake at 702 meters, the Court of Appeals, echoing the trial court, observed with alacrity that when the water level rises due to the rainy season, the NPC ought to release more water to the Agus River to avoid flooding and prevent the water from going over the maximum level.
In the absence of any clear explanation on what other factors could have explained the flooding in the neighboring properties of the dam, it is fair to reasonably infer that the incident happened because of want of care on the part of NPC to maintain the water level of the dam within the benchmarks at the maximum normal lake elevation of 702 meters. 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.
although the dam was built in 1978, the benchmarks were installed only in July and August of 1984 and that apparently, many had already worn-out, to be replaced only in October of 1986. At that time, many farms and houses were already swamped and many fishponds, including those of the private respondents, damaged.
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.”
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.
[G.R. No. 124378. March 8, 2005]
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.
FACTS:
Office of the President of the Philippines issued Memorandum Order No. 398 - “Prescribing Measures to Preserve the Lake Lanao Watershed, To Enforce the Reservation of Areas Around the Lake Below Seven Hundred And Two Meters Elevation, and for Other Purposes.” Said decree instructed the NPC to build the Agus Regulation Dam at the mouth of Agus River in Lanao del Sur, at a normal maximum water level of Lake Lanao at 702 meters elevation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner built and operated the said dam in 1978.
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.
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.
Respondents 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. NPC retorted that visible monuments and benchmarks indicating the 702-meter elevation had been established around the lake from 1974 to 1983, which should have served as a warning to the private respondents not to introduce any improvements below the 702-meter level as this was outlawed.
Left with no other recourse, the private respondents filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Marawi City
DECISION OF LOWER COURT:
(1) RTC – Marawi City: judgment is hereby rendered in favor of respondents. (2) CA: affirmed RTC.
ISSUE:
whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s verdict that petitioner was legally answerable for the damages endured by the private respondents.
RULING:
No, NPC is liable.
With respect to its job to maintain the normal maximum level of the lake at 702 meters, the Court of Appeals, echoing the trial court, observed with alacrity that when the water level rises due to the rainy season, the NPC ought to release more water to the Agus River to avoid flooding and prevent the water from going over the maximum level.
In the absence of any clear explanation on what other factors could have explained the flooding in the neighboring properties of the dam, it is fair to reasonably infer that the incident happened because of want of care on the part of NPC to maintain the water level of the dam within the benchmarks at the maximum normal lake elevation of 702 meters. 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.
although the dam was built in 1978, the benchmarks were installed only in July and August of 1984 and that apparently, many had already worn-out, to be replaced only in October of 1986. At that time, many farms and houses were already swamped and many fishponds, including those of the private respondents, damaged.
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.”
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment