080 - NPC v.

CA, 161 SCRA 334

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION V. CA

G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC V. CA

G.R. No. L-47481 May 16, 1988

TOPIC: Article 1174 Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. 

PRINCIPLE
FORCE MAJEUR
Word “Except in the cases expressly specified by the law. “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.

FACTS
NPC assailed the decision of Court of Appeals when the court favored to the filed case of ECI in the G.R
No. L-47379 contending that the CA erred in adjudging them as liable.
ECI assailed the decision of CA when it adjudge decision reducing damages and other claims.

The facts are as follows; NPC entered into a contract with NAWASA (National Waterworks Sewages
Authority) to build a project tunnel. While NPC the operator of Ipo Dam Angat Dam in Bulacan.

On Nov. 4, 1967 typhoon Whelming hit Central Luzon, passing through these dams, due to the heavy
rain the dams reached the critical level when the water increases fast by 60 cm per hour, that lead them
to open the spillway gates and surge a large volume that destroy the project of ECI.

This led to filing of ECI to Trial court through negligence of NPC opening the spill gates knowing that
there is typhoon coming. The trial court in favor with the ECI and the Court of appeals sustained it.

ISSUE
Whether CA erred in the decision for sustaining the RTC’s decision and whether the reduction of actual
damages for liability of NPC to ECI.

RULING
Both petitions are lack of merit

The CA did not err in the decision of Trial Court in sustaining that NPC has committed negligence
contrary to their claim that it was a force majeure.
To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, he must be free from any previous
negligence or misconduct by which the loss or damage may have been occasioned.
NPC cannot escape liability because its negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage.
The CA did not err in sustaining the Trial Court in sustaining it decision when it reduced the damages
because there was no bad faith on the part of NPC and that neither can the latter's negligence be
considered gross.