NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL., vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO C.

RAYO, ET
AL., respondents.
G.R. Nos. 103442-45. May 21, 1993.

Rule Synopsis: If a person’s negligence concurs with an act of God, the whole event is humanized and
the person causing damage to another cannot exempt himself from liability.

FACTS: National Power Corporation (NPC) maintains a hydroelectric plant in the Angat River, Benjamin
Chavez was the plant supervisor. Meanwhile Rayo et al were residents of Norzagaray, Bulacan.

On the evening of October 26, 1978, NPC allegedly caused the inundation of a town in Norzagaray when
it released water through the spillways of the Angat Dam at the height of typhoon “Kading” as the
Dam’s water level went beyond the maximum limit. The flooding resulted to the drowning of the
members of the household of Rayo, together with their animals; their properties were also washed
away. The release of water was made despite NPC’s knowledge of the impending typhoon, as early as
October 24 and its monitoring of the water level.

Rayo et al filed four separate complaints for damages against NPC.

In its answer, NPC argued that the damage caused to Rayo was due to a fortuitous event, among others.

The CFI absolved NPC for lack of sufficient and credible evidence. The CA reversed, holding NPC and
Chavez jointly and severally liable to Rayo et al. The SC affirmed, NPC liable.

Issue: What was the proximate cause of the damage suffered by Rayo et al?

HELD – NPC’S NEGLIGENCE.

Procedural note: This issue was already raised in an earlier case involving the same incident, whereby the
SC held that the proximate cause of the damage was NPC’s negligent act. This ruling was binding on the
Court. Also, the Court found to reason to review the factual findings of the CA.

Citing the CA decision:

Circumstances leading to the conclusion of NPC’s negligence: the unholiness of the hour, the extent of
the opening of the spillways, and the magnitude of the water released, the inundation even of areas 1
km away from the Angat river bank.

Factual findings of NPC’s negligence: NPC was duly warned of the typhoon as its coming was published
in headlines of a newspaper of national circulation. There were also radio announcements regarding the
same. Yet NPC maintained a water level beyond maximum despite its knowledge of the safe level. From
October 24, until the Dam’s water release on the evening of October 26, the water level was maintained
at maximum with very little opening of the spillways. Furthermore, the “early warning notice” given by
NPC were also found insufficient: 1) it did not prepare or warn the residents of the volume of water to
be released, they should have been advised to evacuate, and 2) it was not given to the proper municipal
officials for dissemination, but rather to a policeman.
On the merits, the SC held that NPC cannot invoke the force majeure or the act of God doctrine to
exempt itself from liability since it was not entirely free from fault – one of the requisites for the
application of Art. 1174 CC, to wit: (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 debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the
debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.

If upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud,
negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided
for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.
The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned
exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or
entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found
to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or
failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules
applicable to the acts of God.