Considering
the heavy rains and floods, I have collected few relevant cases and provisions
of the law.
1.
What is a fortuitous event?
Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not
foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not
have been forseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it MUST BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO FORSEE OR AVOID. The mere difficulty to forsee the happening is
not impossibility to foresee the same (Sicam v. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617, August 8,
2007).
2.
Is flood a fortuitous event?
As a general rule, flood, being caused by heavy rains, is a
fortuitous event. However, in the event that there is a human intervention that
showed negligence, flood ceases to be a fortuitous event. (Napocor v. CA, G.R.
No. 96410, July 3, 1992)
3.
The TYPHOON KADING had caused floods in the town
of Bulacan. Mr. Palad filed a case against NAPOCOR since according to him, he
suffered extensive property damage due to flood. He attributed the flooding to
the negligent release of flood waters in Angat Dam by NAPOCOR. The NAPOCOR
alleged that the flood was a fortuitous event and that they cannot be held
liable.
Is NAPOCOR liable?
The Supreme Court held that NAPOCOR is liable since,
considering that it can anticipate the abnormal rise of the water level in the
dam, NAPOCOR should have started gradually spilling water from the dam into the
Angat river but instead it waited until it was too late to release the flood
water. The flood gates were opened at 5 mts to 14 mts in 3 hours instead of 2 meters per hour. The
witness also testified that the water rises so fast within the period of 10
minutes from knee level to up to the neck. The unusual flood, which destroyed
Mr. Palad’s properties, was not brought about by the rain waters that came from
typhoon Kading but by NAPOCOR’s delayed opening of the spillway gates. (NAPOCOR
v. Palad, G.R. No. 102206)
4.
Isabel was crossing a waist deep flood to check
on her merchandise in her grocery store when she was electrocuted and eventually
died. Her heirs filed a case for damages against the Ilocos Norte Electric
Company. The defendant alleged that they are not liable due to fortuitous event
and that Isabel assumed risk when she deliberately crossed the flood instead of
staying at home. Is INEC liable?
The Supreme Court held that INEC is liable since it did not
exercise the required high degree of diligence and care. The circumstances of the case showed that
INEC was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the general public. The
negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not absolve itself from
liability by arguing that the victim’s death was solely due to a fortuitous
event.
The court added that “a person is excused from the force of
rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the
consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of
another is in peril, or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property.
Clearly, an emergency was at hand as Isabel’s property, as source of her
livelihood, was faced with an impending loss. (Ilocos Electric Company v. CA,
G.R. No. L-53401)
5.
Philippine Lexus Amusement Corporation leased a
warehouse in Libertad St., Mandaluyong City, from Guevent Industrial
Development Corporation. On September 25, heavy rains flooded Libertad St. and
damaged the property of Philippine Lexus. A case of damages was filed by
Philippine Lexus alleging that the clogged storm drainage and sewer pipes
installed underground the warehouse caused the flooding. It further alleged
that their contract stipulates that Guevent must maintain the warehouse in good
and tenable condition. Guevent denied liability and alleged that it was public
drainage of Mandaluyong City that caused the flood. Is Guevent liable?
The Supreme Court held that Guevent was not liable since the
flood was attributed to the clogging of the public pipes and not of the
internal pipes.
It held that it cannot hold Guevent negligent, for the record
revels that it had constantly requested the local government to dredge and
de-clog public sewers. The maintenance of the public drainage system could not
have been contemplated by the lease contract when it provided that the lessor
shall maintain the premises in good and tenable condition. The law of contract
does not force the performance of impossible obligations by the parties, and
the maintenance of the public sewers is something impossible to expect from the
lessor. He is accountable only for its pipes, and it should not be held
responsible for the maintenance of the public sewers. (Guevent Industrial
Development Corporation v. Philippine Lexus Amusement Corporation, G.R. No.
159279, July 11, 2006)
6.
Laureta Trinidad approached Vicente Francisco
and offered to buy his house in Commonwealth, Quezon City. She inspected the
house and examined the vicinity map which indicated a drainage canals along the
property. They agreed for a five year installment period on payment. When
Laureta transferred and decorated the house, the neighbors told her that 2
other buyers backed out since the house is flooded. She answered that Vicente
assured him that it has been fixed and the house would never be flooded again.
Laureta was able to pay installments in 2 years, however, she eventually
decided not to continue paying because the house was flooded again. Laureta
filed a case of rescission due to fraud which induced her to enter into a
contract of sale. Is there fraud sufficient to rescind the contract?
The Supreme Court held that the allegations of Laureta cannot
justify rescission of the contract. “Fraud is never lightly inferred; it is
good faith that is. The fraud alleged by Laureta has not been satisfactorily
established to call for the annulment of the contract.
First, it was laureta who admittedly approached Vicente, who
never advertised the property or offer it for sale.
Second, Laureta has full opportunity to inspect the premises,
including the drainage canals indicated in the vicinity map that was furnished
to her.
Third, it was assumed that she made her appraisal of the
property not with the untrained eye of the ordinary prospective buyer but with
the experience and expertise of the licensed real estate broker that she was.
Fourth, seeing that the lot was depressed and there was a
drainage lot abutting it, she cannot say that she was not forewarned of the possibility
that the place might be flooded.
Fifth, there is no evidence except her own testimony that two
buyers vacated the property because of floods and that Vicente assured her that
the house will not be flooded again.
The pertinent provision of the Civil Code on fraud are the
following:
Art. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or
machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter
into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.
Art. 1339. Failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to
reveal them, as when the parties are bound by confidential relations,
constitute fraud.
Article. 1340. The
usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know
the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent.
The Supreme Court further held that the transaction was a BAD
BARGAIN, NOT AN ILLEGAL TRANSACTION VITIATED BY FRAUD, as states:
. . . Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and
extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve
him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts
cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally
incompetent. Court operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome
by another, but because he has been defeated or overcome illegally. MEN MAY DO
FOOLISH THINGS, MAKE RIDICULOUS CONTRACTS, USE MISERABLE JUDGMENT, AND LOSE
MONEY BY THEM – indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that alone can
the law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of law,
the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts
are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it. (Laureta Trinidad v.
Vicente Francisco, G.R. No. L-65922)
