C.

Fortuitous Event
1. National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103442-45. May 21, 1993
Facts:
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against respondent for the lost of lives and destruction of properties
due to the negligence of the latter in releasing water from Angat dam during the typhoon Kading
Benjamin Chavez, being the supervisor at that time of a multi-purpose hydroelectric plant in the Angat
River at Hilltop, Norzagaray, Bulacan, failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring the water level at
the dam.NPC, in its defense, alleged among others that the damages incurred by the private
respondents were caused by a fortuitous event or force majeure and are in the nature and character of
damnum absque injuria.
On appeal, the CA ruled that NPC is negligent based on the findings that stored water was
suddenly and simultaneously released from Angat Dam.
Issue:
WON the flash flood was a fortuitous event which exonerates NPC from liability.
Ruling:
No. Accordingly, petitioners cannot be heard to invoke the act of God or force majeure to
escape liability for the loss or damage sustained by private respondents since they, the petitioners,
were guilty of negligence. The event then was not occasioned exclusively by an act of God or force
majeure; a human factor negligence or imprudence had intervened. The effect then of the force
majeure in question may be deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from the participation of
man. Thus, the whole occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the laws
applicable to acts of God.
2. Southeastern College, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 126389. July 10, 1998
Facts:
Private respondents are owners of a house at 326 College Road, Pasay City, while petitioner
owns a four-storey school building along the same College Road. Typhoon Saling hit Metro
Manila. Buffeted by very strong winds, the roof of petitioners building was partly ripped off and blown
away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents house. Private
respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for damages based on culpa aquiliana. In its answer,
petitioner averred among others that it has not been remiss in its responsibility to see to it that said
school building, is in tip-top condition; and furthermore, typhoon Saling was an act of God and
therefore beyond human control.
Issue:
WON petitioner can invoke act of god to excuse it from liability.
Ruling:
No. In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he
be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been
occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of
gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences. When a persons
negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage or injury to another, such person is not
exempt from liability by showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a
fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man whether it
be from active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act the whole occurrence is hereby humanized,
and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

D. Assumption of Risk & Violente Non Fit Injuria

1. Afialda v. Hisole, G.R. No. L-2075. November 29, 1949
Facts:
Loreto Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos owned by Basilio Hisole. In March 1947, without
any fault from Afialda or any force majeure, one of the carabaos gored him thereby causing his death.
Afialdas sister, Margarita, sued Hisole arguing that under the Civil Code, The possessor of an animal,
or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal should
escape from him or stray away. This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from
force majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it.
Issue:
WON Hisole is liable in the case at bar as owner of the carabao which killed Afialda.
Ruling:
No. The law uses the term possessor and user of the animal. Afialda was the caretaker of the
animal and he was tasked and paid to tend for the carabaos. He, at the time of the goring, is the
possessor and the user of the carabao and therefore he is the one who had custody and control of the
animal and was in a position to prevent the animal from causing damage. It would have been different
had Afialda been a stranger. Obviously, it was the caretakers business to try to prevent the animal
from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under
those circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for
which he must take the consequences.