NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION,
INC., respondents.
G.R. No. L-47481 May 16, 1988
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COUTRT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, respondents.
Raymundo A. Armovit for private respondent in L-47379.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Doctrine:
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.
In this case, NPC was undoubtedly negligent because it opened the spillway gates of the
Angat Dam only at the height of typhoon "Welming" when it knew very well that it
was safer to have opened the same gradually and earlier, as it was also undeniable that
NPC knew of the coming typhoon at least four days before it actually struck. Thus, NPC
cannot escape liability.
FACTS:
On August 4, 1964, Engineering Construction, Inc. (ECI)executed a contract with
the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), whereby ECI
undertook to furnish all tools, labor, equipment, and materials (not furnished by
Owner), and to construct the proposed 2nd Ipo-Bicti Tunnel, Intake and Outlet
Structures, and Appurtenant Structures, and Appurtenant Features, at
Norzagaray, Bulacan, and to complete said works within eight hundred (800)
calendar days from the date the Contractor receives the formal notice to proceed.
The project involved two (2) major phases: the first phase comprising the tunnel
work covering a distance of seven (7) kilometers, passing through the mountain,
from the Ipo river, a part of Norzagaray, Bulacan, where the Ipo Dam of the
National Power Corporation (NPC) is located, to Bicti; the other phase consisting
of the outworks at both ends of the tunnel.
By September 1967, the ECI already had completed the first major phase of the
work, namely, the tunnel excavation work. As soon as the ECI had finished the
tunnel excavation work at the Bicti site, all the equipment no longer needed there
were transferred to the Ipo site where some projects were yet to be completed.
The record shows that on November 4, 1967, typhoon 'Welming' hit Central Luzon,
passing through NPC’sAngat Hydro-electric Project and Dam at Ipo,
Norzagaray, Bulacan. Strong winds struck the project area, and heavy rains
intermittently fell. Due to the heavy downpour, the water in the reservoir of
the Angat Dam was rising perilously at the rate of sixty (60) centimeters per
hour. To prevent an overflow of water from the dam, NPC caused the opening of
the spillway gates.
The appellate court sustained the findings of the trial court that the evidence
preponderantly established the fact that due to the negligent manner with
which the spillway gates of the AngatDam were opened, an extraordinary large
volume of water rushed out of the gates, and hit the installations and
construction works of ECI at the Ipo site with terrific impact, as a result of which
the latter's stockpile of materials and supplies, camp facilities and permanent
structures and accessories were either washed away, lost or destroyed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the destruction and loss of the ECI's equipment and facilities
were due to force majeure. (NO)
RULING:
It is clear from the appellate court's decision that based on its findings of fact and
that of the trial court's, NPC was undoubtedly negligent because it opened the
spillway gates of the Angat Dam only at the height of typhoon "Welming" when
it knew very well that it was safer to have opened the same gradually and
earlier, as it was also undeniable that NPC knew of the coming typhoon at least
four days before it actually struck. And even though the typhoon was an act of
God or what we may call force majeure, NPC cannot escape liability because its
negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage. As the SC have ruled
in Juan F. Nakpil& Sons v. Court of Appeals:
"Thus, 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
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 was, and removed from the
rules applicable to the acts of God.
"Thus, it has been held that when the negligence of a person concurs with
an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from
liability by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was the act
of God. 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.”
