Rayo Vs Cfi of Bulacan

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-55273-83 December 19, 1981
GAUDENCIO RAYO, BIENVINIDO PASCUAL, TOMAS MANUEL, MARIANO CRUZ,
PEDRO BARTOLOME, BERNARDINO CRUZ JOSE PALAD , LUCIO FAJARDO,
FRANCISCO RAYOS, ANGEL TORRES, NORBERTO TORRES, RODELIO JOAQUIN,
PEDRO AQUINO, APOLINARIO BARTOLOME, MAMERTO BERNARDO, CIRIACO
CASTILLO, GREGORIO CRUZ, SIMEON ESTRELLA, EPIFANIO MARCELO,
HERMOGENES SAN PEDRO, JUAN SANTOS, ELIZABETH ABAN, MARCELINA
BERNABE, BUENAVENTURA CRUZ, ANTONIO MENESES, ROMAN SAN PEDRO,
LOPEZ ESPINOSA, GODOFREDO PUNZAL, JULIANA GARCIA, LEBERATO
SARMIENTO, INOCENCIO DE LEON, CARLOS CORREA, REYNALDO CASIMIRO,
ANTONIO GENER, GAUDENCIO CASTILLO, MATIAS PEREZ, CRISPINIANO TORRES,
CRESENCIO CRUZ, PROTACIO BERNABE, MARIANO ANDRES, CRISOSTOMO CRUZ,
MARCOS EUSTAQUIO, PABLO LEGASPI, VICENTE PASCUAL, ALEJANDRA SISON,
EUFRACIO TORRES, ROGELIO BARTOLOME, RODOLFO BERNARDO, APOLONIO
CASTILLO, MARCELINO DALMACIO, EUTIQUIO LEGASPI, LORENZO LUCIANO and
GREGORIO PALAD,petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, BRANCH V, STA. MARIA, and NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, respondents.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:

The relevant antecedents of this case are narrated in the petition and have not been
controverted, namely:
3. At about midnight on October 26, 1978, during the height of that infamous
typhoon "KADING" the respondent corporation, acting through its plant
superintendent, Benjamin Chavez, opened or caused to be opened
simultaneously all the three floodgates of the Angat Dam. And as a direct and
immediate result of the sudden, precipitate and simultaneous opening of said
floodgates several towns in Bulacan were inundated. Hardest-hit was
Norzagaray. About a hundred of its residents died or were reported to have
died and properties worth million of pesos destroyed or washed away. This
flood was unprecedented in Norzagaray.
4. Petitioners, who were among the many unfortunate victims of that mancaused flood, filed with the respondent Court eleven complaints for damages
against the respondent corporation and the plant superintendent of Angat
Dam, Benjamin Chavez, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. SM-950 951, 953,
958, 959, 964, 965, 966, 981, 982 and 983. These complaints though
separately filed have a common/similar cause of action. ...
5. Respondent corporation filed separate answers to each of these eleven

complaints. Apart from traversing the material averments in the complaints
and setting forth counterclaims for damages respondent corporation invoked
in each answer a special and affirmative defense that "in the operation of the
Angat Dam," it is "performing a purely governmental function", hence it "can
not be sued without the express consent of the State." ...
6. On motion of the respondent corporation a preliminary hearing was held
on its affirmative defense as though a motion to dismiss were filed.
Petitioners opposed the prayer for dismissal and contended that respondent
corporation is performing not governmental but merely proprietary
functions and that under its own organic act, Section 3 (d) of Republic Act
No. 6395, it can sue and be sued in any court. ...
7. On July 29, 1980 petitioners received a copy of the questioned order of the
respondent Court dated December 21, 1979 dismissing all their complaints
as against the respondent corporation thereby leaving the superintendent of
the Angat Dam, Benjamin Chavez, as the sole party-defendant. ...
8. On August 7, 1980 petitioners filed with the respondent Court a motion for
reconsideration of the questioned order of dismissal. ...
9. The respondent Court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in its
order dated October 3, 1980. ... Hence, the present petition for review on
certiorari under Republic Act No. 5440. (Rollo, pp. 3-6.)
The Order of dismissal dated December 12, 1979, reads as follows:
Under consideration is a motion to dismiss embodied as a special affirmative
defense in the answer filed by defendant NPC on the grounds that said
defendant performs a purely governmental function in the operation of the
Angat Dam and cannot therefore be sued for damages in the instant cases in
connection therewith.
Plaintiffs' opposition to said motion to discuss, relying on Sec. 3 (d) of
Republic Act 6396 which imposes on the NPC the power and liability to sue
and be sued in any court, is not tenable since the same refer to such matters
only as are within the scope of the other corporate powers of said defendant
and not matters of tort as in the instant cases. It being an agency performing
a purely governmental function in the operation of the Angat Dam, said
defendant was not given any right to commit wrongs upon individuals. To sue
said defendant for tort may require the express consent of the State.
WHEREFORE, the cases against defendant NPC are hereby dismissed.
(Rollo, p. 60.)
The Order dated October 3, 1980, denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the
plaintiffs is pro forma; the motion was simply denied for lack of merit. (Rollo, p. 74.)
The petition to review the two orders of the public respondent was filed on October 16, 1980,
and on October 27, 1980, We required the respondents to comment. It was only on April 13,
1981, after a number of extensions, that the Solicitor General filed the required comment.
(Rollo, pp. 107-114.)
On May 27, 1980, We required the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within twenty (20)
days from notice. (Rollo, p. 115.) Petitioners filed their memorandum on July 22, 1981.
(Rollo, pp. 118-125.) The Solicitor General filed a number of motions for extension of time to
file his memorandum. We granted the seventh extension with a warning that there would be
no further extension. Despite the warning the Solicitor General moved for an eighth
extension which We denied on November 9, 1981. A motion for a ninth extension was
similarly denied on November 18, 1981. The decision in this case is therefore, without the
memorandum of the Solicitor General.
The parties are agreed that the Order dated December 21, 1979, raises the following issues:
1. Whether respondent National Power Corporation performs a governmental function with
respect to the management and operation of the Angat Dam; and
2. Whether the power of respondent National Power Corporation to sue and be sued under
its organic charter includes the power to be sued for tort.
The petition is highly impressed with merit.
It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the NPC performs a
governmental function with respect to the management and operation of the Angat Dam. It is
sufficient to say that the government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and
has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter. (R.A. No. 6395, Sec. 3 (d).)
As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct
and separate from that of the Government. (See National Shipyards and Steel Corp. vs. CIR,
et al., L-17874, August 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 781.) Moreover, the charter provision that the NPC
can "sue and be sued in any court" is without qualification on the cause of action and
accordingly it can include a tort claim such as the one instituted by the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted; the Orders of the respondent court dated
December 12, 1979 and October 3, 1980, are set aside; and said court is ordered to
reinstate the complaints of the petitioners. Costs against the NPC.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, De Castro, Ericta and Escolin JJ., concu

Rayo Vs Cfi of Bulacan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rayo Vs Cfi of Bulacan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rayo Vs Cfi of Bulacan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

5. Respondent corporation filed separate answers to each of these eleven

You might also like