National Power Corporation (NPC)
G.R. No. 47379, May 16, 1988
Doctrine: Even though the typhoon was an act of GOD or what we may call force
majeure. National Power Corporation cannot escape liability because its negligence
was the proximate cause of the loss and damages.
Facts:
Engineering Construction, Inc. executed a contract with the National Waterworks and
Sewerage Authority (NAWASA). ECI already had completed the Tunnel Excavation
Work while some portions of the outworks were still under construction. As soon as the
plaintiff corporation had finished the tunnel excavation work at the Bicti site, all the
equipment no longer needed there were transferred to the Ipo site where some projects
were yet to be completed.
Typhoon “Welming” hit Central Luzon. Due to the heavy downpour, the water of the
Angat Dam was rising and to prevent an overflow of the water NPC caused the opening
of the spill way gates. Extraordinary large volume of the water rushed out of the gates,
and hit the installations and construction works of ECI, as the result of which the latter’s
stockpile of the materials supplies, camp facilities and permanent structures and
accessories whether washed away, lost or destroyed.
Issue:
Whether or not the destruction and loss of ECT’s equipment and facilities were due to
force majeure which will exempt NPC from liability.
Ruling:
No. The NPC will not be exempted from liability. It is clear from the appellate court’s
decision that based on it’s findings of the fact and that of the trial court. The petitioner
NPC was undoubtedly negligent because it opened the spillway gates of the Angat Dam
only at the height of typhoon “Welming” when it knew very well that is was safer to have
opened the same gradually and earlier, as it was also undeniable that National Power
Corporation knew of the coming typhoon at least four days before it actually struck.
Even though the typhoon was an act of GOD or what we may call force majeure.
National Power Corporation cannot escape liability because its negligence was the
proximate cause of the loss and damages.
Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. v. City of Manila and Marcelo Sarmiento
G.R No. L-17447, April 30, 1963
Doctrine: It is well settled that if money be paid through a clear mistake of law or fact,
essentially affecting the rights of the parties, and which in law or conscience was not
payable, and should not be retained by the party receiving it, it may be recovered. Both
law and sound morality so dictate.
Facts:
Plaintiff Puyat Inc. is engaged in business of manufacturing and selling all kinds of
furniture. It is a corporation under the Philippines laws of the Philippines, with offices at
Manila. Acting pursuant to Ordinance No. 3364, City Treasurer assessed from the retail
dealer’s tax on the sales of furniture manufactured and sold by it at its factory site.
Puyat being a manufacturer of various kinds of furniture, is exempt from the payment of
taxes imposed under Ordinance No. 3364 on the sale of the various kinds of furniture
manufactured by it pursuant to R.A No. 409 of the Revise Charter of Manila, as restated
in the Ordinance No. 3816. However, Puyat is liable for payment of taxes prescribed in
Sec 1. Group II or Ordinance No. 3364 as amended by Sec. 1 of Group II or Ordinance
No. 3364 on the sale of imported billiard balls, bowling balls and other accessories at its
display.
Puyat filed with defendant city treasurer of Manila, a formal request for refund of the
retail dealer’s taxes unduly paid by it.
Issue: Whether City of Manila has the obligation to return the Tax paid by the plaintiff
under the principle of solutio indebiti.
Ruling:
Yes. Article 2154 of the New Civil Code if the something is received when there is no
right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake the obligation to return it
arises.
Puyat stated that the payment was not voluntarily made, but on the erroneous belief,
that they were due. Under this circumstance, the amount paid even without protest is
recoverable. “If the payer was in doubt whether the debt was due, he may recover if he
proves that it was not due (Art. 2156 of the New Civil Code).
It is well settled that if money be paid through a clear mistake of law or fact, essentially
affecting the rights of the parties, and which in law or conscience was not payable, and
should not be retained by the party receiving it, it may be recovered. Both law and
sound morality so dictate.
In a recent case. We said “The appellants argue that the sum the refund of which is
sought by the appellee, was not paid under protest and hence is not refundable”. Again,
the trial court correctly held that being unauthorized, it is not a tax assessed under the
Charter of the appellant City of Davao and for that reason, no protest is necessary for a
claim or demand for its refund.
Andres v. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corp.
G.R. No. 82670, September 15, 1989
Facts:
Dometila M. Andres using the business name “Irene’s Wearing Apparel,”
