G.R. Nos. 103442-45. May 21, 1993.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and BENJAMIN CHAVEZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GAUDENCIO C. RAYO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from four separate complaints for damages filed against the National Power Corporation (NPC) and its plant supervisor, Benjamin Chavez, before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bulacan. The plaintiffs (private respondents) sought recovery for the loss of lives and destruction of property caused by the flooding of Norzagaray, Bulacan, on October 26-27, 1978. They alleged that the inundation was due to the negligent release of water through the spillways of the Angat Dam, operated and maintained by NPC, during the height of Typhoon “Kading.” Specifically, they claimed that despite knowledge of the approaching typhoon, the defendants failed to monitor the dam’s water level diligently and then suddenly, negligently, and recklessly opened three spillways, releasing a large volume of water that flooded the riverbanks.
In their defense, petitioners NPC and Chavez asserted that they exercised due care and prudence in the dam’s operation, had sent warning notices to municipalities, and that the water release was necessary to prevent the dam’s collapse and greater catastrophe. They contended the flooding was a fortuitous event (force majeure) and the damages were damnum absque injuria. NPC also raised a special affirmative defense of immunity from suit, claiming it performed a purely governmental function. The trial court initially dismissed the complaints against NPC on this ground, but the Supreme Court later ordered reinstatement.
After consolidation and trial, the lower court dismissed all complaints for lack of sufficient and credible evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It found petitioners guilty of gross negligence in the management and operation of Angat Dam. The appellate court held that despite foreknowledge of Typhoon “Kading,” petitioners maintained the reservoir’s water elevation at or beyond its maximum safe level, leaving no allowance for incoming rainwater. They then suddenly opened the spillways extensively around midnight of October 26, 1978, releasing water at a rate of about 4,500 cubic meters per second, which caused a flash flood. The Court of Appeals awarded substantial actual and moral damages, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees to the private respondents. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioners National Power Corporation and Benjamin Chavez negligent and thus liable for damages arising from the flooding caused by the release of water from Angat Dam during Typhoon “Kading.”

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the Consolidated Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding, as there was no showing that these findings were grounded entirely on speculation or that the appellate court had misapprehended the facts. The evidence established petitioners’ negligence.
Petitioners were aware of the impending typhoon as early as October 21-25, 1978, yet they allowed the dam’s water level to remain at or above its maximum safe elevation of 217 meters until the typhoon’s arrival. This left no buffer to accommodate the expected torrential rains. Their delayed and sudden massive release of water through the spillways starting at midnight of October 26 was an imprudent and negligent act that directly caused the devastating flash flood. The Court ruled that one who, by his negligence, creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural consequences thereof, even if an act of God intervenes to aggravate the danger.
The defense of force majeure or act of God was unavailing because the event was not due exclusively to a natural cause; human negligence intervened. The dam’s operation involved the exercise of proprietary functions, making NPC liable for the torts of its employees. The awards for damages were upheld as being based on the evidence presented. Consequently, petitioners were held jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals.