National Power Corp vs CA Digest

Fortuitous Event

National Power Corporation vs CA G.R. No. 103442-45, May 21, 1993, Davide, Jr., J.

I.E.B. Zapanta

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER "To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an 'act of God,' the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; ( c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the de btor to fulfill his obligation in a normal man ner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. RECIT-READY / SUMMARY On October 1978, Typhoon Kading hit the Philippines. NPC warned the public via an “early warning written notices ” that the damn will be releasing a greater volume of water during the typhoon. However, during the typhoon itself, a huge volume of water was released by the damn in a short time, causing damage to property and loss of l ives. Private respondents claim that NPC is at fault and should be held liable. NPC on the other hand, claims the defense of force majeure. The trial court dismissed the complaints against NPC. The CA reversed the decision. The SC ruled in favor of respondents claiming that the NPC cannot use the defense of fo rce majeure since a human factor – negligence or imprudence – has intervened. FACTS Defendant National Power Corporation (NPC) operates and maintains a multi-purpose hydroelectric plant in the • Angat River at Norzaragay, Bulacan. Defendant Benjamin Chavez was the plant supervisor at the time of the incident in question. • [October 25, 1978] Typhoon Kading entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility. • [October 24, 1978] NPC issued an “early warning written notices ” to the nearby towns from the damn. • [October 26, 1978] Nearby towns received the “early warning written notices”. • [October 27, 1978] Midnight – spillways of the damn were suddenly opened causing flash floods on the nearby • towns of the damn. Trial Court dismissed the complaints against NPC. • [August 19, 1991] CA reversed the decision of the trial court. • [February 21, 1992] Petitioners filed the instant petition at the SC. • ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED 1. WON NPC can claim the defense of force majeure Art. 1191 of the NCC - The power to rescind obligations is (damnum absque injuria) – NO. implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. HELD 1. Petitioners cannot be heard to invoke the act of God or force majeure to escape liability for the loss or damage sustained by the private respondents since they, the petitioners, were guilty of negligence. The event then was not occasioned exclusively by an act of God or force majeure; a human factor —  negligence or imprudence —  had intervened. The effect then of the force majeure in question may be deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from the participation of man. Thus, the whole occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God. The negligence of the petitioners, and that th e 24 October 1978 "early warning n otice" supposedly sent to the affected municipalities, the same notice involved in the case at bar, was insufficient. The petitioners were guilty of "patent gross and evident lack of foresight, imprudence and negligence in the management and operation of Angat Dam," and that "the extent of the opening of the spillways, and the magnitude of the water released, are all but products of defendants-appellees' headlessness, slovenliness, and carelessness."