GR 124378; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124378 . March 8, 2005.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HADJI ABDUL CARIM ABDULLAH, CARIS ABDULLAH, HADJI ALI LANGCO and DIAMAEL PANGCATAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Pursuant to a presidential memorandum order, petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) built and operated the Agus Regulation Dam at Lake Lanao in 1978, mandated to maintain a normal maximum water level of 702 meters. Private respondents owned and operated fishponds along the Lake Lanao shore, constructed and stocked between 1984 and 1986. In late 1986, heavy rains caused the lake’s water level to rise, flooding and destroying these fishponds. Private respondents claimed NPC’s negligent operation of the dam, specifically its failure to increase water outflow, was the proximate cause of the inundation. NPC denied negligence, asserting it maintained the mandated water level and that private respondents’ structures were illegally built below the 702-meter elevation, a prohibited zone marked by visible benchmarks.
ISSUE
Whether NPC is liable for damages due to its alleged negligent operation of the Agus Regulation Dam, which caused the flooding of private respondents’ fishponds.
RULING
Yes, NPC is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings. The legal logic rests on the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The flooding incident, which occurred after the dam’s operation and during NPC’s exclusive control of the water outflow mechanisms, is an event that ordinarily does not happen if due care is exercised. This created a presumption of NPC’s negligence. NPC failed to rebut this presumption conclusively. While it cited its mandate to maintain the 702-meter level, it did not sufficiently prove that its employees exercised the requisite diligence in operating the dam’s gates during the period of heavy inflow. The Court also rejected NPC’s defense that the fishponds were within a prohibited area. The evidence showed the structures were built when the water level was low and were not within the immediate danger zone, and NPC failed to demonstrate it had actively enforced the prohibition or adequately warned the respondents. Consequently, NPC’s negligence was established as the proximate cause of the damage. The Court upheld the award of temperate damages, as the exact pecuniary loss could not be proven with certainty, but it was reasonable under the circumstances.