Sanggacala v. NPC

PACALNA SANGGACALA, ALI MACARAYA MATO, MUALAM DIMATINGCAL,
AND CASIMRA SULTAN, PETITIONERS, v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,

RESPONDENT
G.R. No. 209538, July 07, 2021
Leonen, J. – Third Division
NATURE OF THE ACTION:
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals, which reversed the Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court.
FACTS:
National Power Corporation was mandated, to preserve the Lake Lanao Watershed, to
“place in every town around the lake, at the normal maximum lake elevation of seven hundred
and two meters, benchmarks warning that cultivation of land below said elevation is prohibited.”
In 1978, National Power Corporation constructed the Agus Regulation Dam at Saduc, Marawi
City for the control and management over Lake Lanao's water outflow and "to run the turbine
machines for power production of their Hydro Electric Power Plant along the Agus River such as
Agus I, II, IV, VI, VII and VIII."
Sanggacala, et al., a group of farmers, farmland, and fishpond owners along the Lake
Lanao shore, filed separate complaints for damages against the NPC claiming that NPC’s refusal
to open the floodgates of Agus Regulation Dam whenever flooding occurred damaged their
farmlands and crops for the years 1979, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996.
The RTC ruled in favor of Sanggacala, et al. The RTC found that Sanggacala et al.'s
properties were damaged by the NPC's refusal to open its Agus Regulation Dam whenever there
was overflooding. On appeal, the CA reversed the Decision of the RTC. The CA held that
Sanggacala, et al. failed to establish a prima facie case for recovery of damages against the NPC.
Petitioners maintain that the construction of the Agus Regulation Dam in 1979 altered the
water level of Lake Lanao, with the water held causing flood around the lakeshores, which in
turn destroyed their farmlands and crops.45 Petitioners reiterate that they suffered damages due
to the flooding, specifically in 1979, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, since
the Agus Regulation Dam became operational. On the other hand, the NPC denies liability for
environmental tort based on negligence, claiming that it was neither at fault nor negligent in
performing its duties under Memorandum Order No. 398.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent National Power Corporation committed environmental tort

based on negligence.
RULING:
The Petition is GRANTED.
Environmental tort is a hybrid of two disciplines—tort law and environmental law, and
may provide an "institutional answer that addresses the remaining gaps in public health
protection." Environmental harm may include "immediate and future physical injury to people,
emotional distress from fear of future injury, social and economic disruption, remediation costs,
property damage, ecological damage, and regulatory harms."
Tort law provides a means to address environmental harms, where the "harm is to a well-
defined area or specific person or class of persons, is readily supported by general and specific
causation, and closely fits the traditional elements of a tort cause of action.
More important, for an environmental tort action to prosper, there must "be an actual
injury to a person or group of persons or to property." The essential purpose of an environmental
tort action is "to provide corrective justice based upon the relative fault or blameworthiness of
another."
The trial court in the present case aptly considered the following evidence in finding negligence
on the part of respondent:
1. The [petitioners] and other affected farmers has not experienced subject flooding before
the erection of [respondent's] regulation dam;
2. The research study of Miss Lindy Washburn has established that the normal lake
elevation is 700.09 meters above sea level[;]
3. The issuance by [respondent's] Board of Directors Resolution No. authorizing the release
of P25,941,807.00 as financial assistance to the 3,565 claimants from the Barangays and
Municipalities around Lake Lanao that were affected and has suffered damages to their
farm crops due to the high water elevation. This very resolution is in effect an admission
on the part of [respondent] that the 3,565 claimants were adversely affected by the high
water surface elevation of the lake in 1993 and 1994 due to its regulation dam
Accordingly, the essential elements of an environmental tort action based on negligence

are present. The environmental harm in a well-defined area or specific person or class of persons
is the damage to the farmlands and other properties of petitioners sited along the shore of Lake
Lanao.
Further, the finding of respondent's negligence in operating the Agus Regulation Dam
caused inundation and damage to petitioners' properties shows a general and specific causation,
and closely fits the traditional elements of a tort cause of action.

Sanggacala v. NPC

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

Sanggacala v. NPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PACALNA SANGGACALA, ALI MACARAYA MATO, MUALAM DIMATINGCAL,

AND CASIMRA SULTAN, PETITIONERS, v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 209538, July 07, 2021

Leonen, J. – Third Division

NATURE OF THE ACTION:

Whether or not respondent National Power Corporation committed environmental tort

The Petition is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the essential elements of an environmental tort action based on negligence

You might also like