G.R. No. 209538 , July 07, 2021
PACALNA SANGGACALA, ALI MACARAYA MATO, MUALAM DIMATINGCAL, AND CASIMRA SULTAN, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The National Power Corporation (NPC), a government-owned corporation, constructed the Agus Regulation Dam in 1978 to control the water outflow from Lake Lanao for hydroelectric power generation. Petitioners Pacalna Sanggacala, Ali Macaraya Mato, Mualam Dimatingcal, and Casimra Sultan are farmers and members of the Ranao-NPC Affected Organization, owning farmlands along the Lake Lanao shore. They filed separate complaints for damages against NPC, alleging that its refusal to open the dam’s floodgates during flooding events in the years 1979, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 caused damage to their farmlands and crops. They contended that NPC’s adherence to Letter of Instruction No. 1310, which set a maximum lake elevation of 702 meters, effectively created an illegal expropriation of their properties within the five-meter elevation band. NPC defended itself by arguing that the petitioners’ properties were not among those damaged, and that any damage was damnum absque injuria (damage without wrongful act), as the petitioners had cultivated lands below the 702-meter mark in violation of Memorandum Order No. 398 which prohibited such cultivation. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, awarding them actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, just compensation, rental, and interest. NPC appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the National Power Corporation is liable for damages to the petitioners’ properties arising from the operation of the Agus Regulation Dam and the management of Lake Lanao’s water levels.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that NPC’s acts or omissions in operating the dam were the proximate cause of the flooding damage to their properties. The Court found no evidence that NPC refused to open the floodgates when necessary; rather, NPC’s operation of the dam was in accordance with its mandate and the prescribed water levels. The flooding was attributed to natural phenomena like heavy rainfall and typhoons. The cultivation by petitioners below the 702-meter elevation mark was in violation of Memorandum Order No. 398, and they assumed the risk of such cultivation. The Court ruled that the damage suffered was damnum absque injuria, as NPC was performing a lawful duty without negligence. Consequently, the awards for actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, just compensation, and rental were deleted. The Court also found no basis for the application of the rule on conclusiveness of judgment based on other similar cases, as each case must be proven on its own merits.