NPC vs.

CA
Facts: The NPC is tasked to undertake the task of the development of hydroelectric generation of
power, as well as the production and transmission of electricity. By virtue of Memorandum Order
398, the NPC constructed the Agus Regulation Dam at a normal maximum water level of 702
meters elevation. Said Dam was built and operated in 1978. In October and November 1986, the
fishponds and its improvements were washed away when the water level of the lake escalated
and the surrounding areas were flooded. Petitioner denied liability on the ground that it was
mandated to operate the dam at a level of 702 meters, and visible benchmarks have been
established around the lake as a warning to local residents. As such, a complaint of
damages was filed. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: WON, Petitioner is liable.
Ruling: Yes. By virtue of the MO, petitioner has two duties: (1) maintain operation at 702, and (2)
build benchmarks to serve as warning to the residents. Now, petitioner denies liability on the
basis that the water level never rose above the maximum level at any point in time. However,
upon the ocular inspection conducted by the RTC and both parties were present, it was
established that the benchmarks, could not be seen nor reached because they were
totally covered by water. By application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks
for itself), where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those
who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. In the case at bar, the
fact that the benchmarks could not be seen nor reached, constitutes proof that the water level
did rise above the benchmarks and flooded the areas which caused the damage to respondents
fishponds and improvements. In the absence of any clear explanation as to what other factors
caused the flooding, it is reasonable to infer that the incident happened because of want of care
by petitioner to maintain the water level of the dam within the maximum level.

PLDT vs. CA, Esteban Spouses

Facts: Private respondents sustained injuries when their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell
into a trench excavated by petitioner PLDT for the installation of their underground system.
Petitioner denies liability on the ground that the accident was caused by respondents own
negligence. The RTC awarded damages to respondents, but was reversed by the CA.
Issue: WON, PLDT is liable.
Ruling: No. As provided for by evidence, the accident occurred due to the lack of diligence of
respondents. The accident occurred due to the fact that the jeep was running quite fast, running
only on dim lights, and due to an unexplained swerving, hit the mound which then caused their
injuries. Moreover, respondents knew of the existence and location of the mound, having passed
that same street everyday. Such negligence was not contributory, but proximate in character and
thereby precludes them from recovering damages. By exercising reasonable care and prudence,
the accident could have been avoided.

Teh Le Kim vs. Phil. Aerial Taxi

Facts: Petitioner herein, was a passenger for a flight to Iloilo aboard a hydroplane. Upon landing,
and while the engines are still running as a safety precaution, petitioner without the permission
of the captain, unfastened his seat straps, went to the pontoon toward the still revolving
propeller, which then struck him. The CFI dismissed the case.
Issue: WON, PAT is liable.
Ruling: No. Petitioner acted with reckless negligence, and sheer lack of common sense, in
approaching the revolving propeller, notwithstanding the warning shouts of other people.
Moreover, he ought to know that since the plane was still in water, he had to wait for a banca to
take him ashore. His negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident, and not the slightest
negligence is attributable to the defendant.