ANDAMO v.

IAC
G.R. No. 74761

Date of Promulgation: November 6, 1990

Ponente: Fernan, C. J.
Petitioners: Natividad Andamo and Emmanuel Andamo
Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc.

Facts:
Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo owned a parcel of land in Silang, Cavite
adjacent to that of private respondent Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc. Within the
latter’s land, waterpaths and contrivances such as an artificial lake were constructed which
inundated and eroded the former’s property and crops, as well as causing a young man to drown.

Petitioners instituted separate criminal and civil actions before the Cavite RTC. On August 27,
1984, the RTC dismissed the civil case as the criminal case remained unresolved. Respondent
IAC later affirmed the RTC’s order.

Issue/Held:
WON petitioners’ civil case should be reinstated – YES

Doctrines:
1. Article 2176, CC. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

2. Article 2177, CC. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant. (n)

Ratio:
1. On the elements of a quasi-delict

The elements of a quasi-delict, as treated of in Articles 2176 and 2177 of the CC, are
enumerated below. Note however, that this is the enumeration provided for by
jurisprudence*:

a. Damages suffered by the plaintiff;

b. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
respond;
c. Connection of cause and effect between fault or negligence of defendant and damage
incurred by the plaintiff.
 (Note: Damage should be injury because there can be damnum absque injuria, or damage
without injury, in cases such as those involving easements. – Casis)

Petitioners’ complaint makes it clear that the damage suffered by them was connected to the
acts of the respondent corporation. The following are among the contrivances enumerated in
petitioners’ complaint:

a. Respondent corporation constructed waterpaths which serve as the exit-point of

floodwater coming from the said corporation’s land, and simultaneously the entrance-
point of the same floodwater into petitioners’ property.
b. On respondent corporation’s land, an artificial lake was also constructed, which
overflowed during rainy seasons, the excess water flooding petitioners’ land.

It must be noted that Article 431 of the CC states that “the owner of a thing cannot make use
thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person”.

2. On the reinstatement of petitioners’ civil case

Article 2176 of the CC covers both acts “not punishable by law” and criminal acts, whether
voluntary and intentional or negligent. In addition, the same negligent act causing damages
may produce civil liability arising from a crime under the RPC, or an action for quasi-delicts
under the CC. Therefore, as the Court held in Azucena v. Potenciano, the civil action in
quasi-delicts is independent of the criminal case.

(NOTE: No legal basis was given for the above statement. The only issue seems to be
whether the civil case can proceed independently.)

Decision:
Decision is reversed.

*Note:

Based on a more textual reading of Art. 2176, the following are the elements of a quasi-delict:

1. Act or omission;
2. Damage to another;
3. Fault or negligence; and
4. No pre-existing contractual relation.