Topic Causal Relation Between Act/Omission and Injury

Case No. G.R. No. 125018 / April 6, 2000

Case Name REMMAN ENTERPRISES vs. LAT
Ponente BELLOSILLO, j.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Remman Enterprises and Crispin Lat are adjoining landowners in Lipa City.

Crispin Lat 1.8 hectares Plantation – fruit bearing trees

Remman Enterprises 15 hectares 6 hectares are devoted to piggery business

 Remman’s land is also 1.5m higher in elevation that that of Lat’s.

 In July 1984, Lat noticed that Remman’s waste disposal lagoon was already overflowing and inundating
¼ of his plantation. He told this to Remman but nothing was done.
 On March 14, 1985, almost 1 hectare of the plantation was flooded with water containing pig manure.
As a result, the trees therein started to wither and die.
 Lat filed a complaint for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against Remman. He alleged
that the acidity of the soil in his plantation increased because of the overflow of the water heavy with
pig manure from Remman’s piggery farm.
 Remman denied this saying that it already constructed additional lagoons to contain the waste water to
prevent damage to the adjoining estates.
 Ocular inspection was conducted. RTC found that indeed Remman’s waste disposal lagoon overflowed
with contaminated water flooding 1 hectare of Lat’s plantation. Waste water was ankle-deep and
caused death and destruction to a number of fruit trees and vegetables. Remman was ordered to pay
P186,975 for lost profits.
 CA affirmed.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N Remman’s liability for
the damages suffered by Lat
was clearly established.
Ratio
YES
 Remman argues that its liability for the damages suffered by Lat was
not clearly established.
 SC disagrees saying that during the ocular inspection, representatives
of both parties were present. And it was established that the waste
water containing pig manure was continuously flowing from
Remman’s piggery to Lat’s plantation, which continued from June
1984 to March 1985. As a result, a number of trees were destroyed.
 Indeed there was negligence on the part of Remman:.
(1) It failed to monitor the increases in the level of water in the
lagoons before, during and after the heavy rains.
(2) It failed to augment the existing lagoons prior to the incident
knowing that since it increased its capacity, the existing waste
disposal facilities were no longer adequate.
(3) It repeatedly failed to comply with its promise to Lat.
 Remman’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to
Lat. Hence, it is liable.
 W/N CA erred in rejecting its
request for the production of
Lat’s income tax returns
(ITR).
W/N damages sustained by
Lat have been satisfactorily
established.
W/N the damages were due
to a fortuitous event.
NO
 Remman argues that if Lat’s ITR had been produced, the issue of the
alleged damages suffered by Lat would have been settled.
 SC said it’s moot since it had previously affirmed CA’s decision. Also,
the tax returns per se could not reflect the total amount of damages
suffered by Lat, as income losses from a portion of plantation could
be offset by any profit derived from other sources of income.
YES
 An ocular inspection has been conducted by the trial court.
 An inventory of dead and rotten trees and plants were made. Lat also
testified on the approximate annual harvest and fair market value
thereof, which Remman did not oppose.
NO
 Remman is guilty of negligence. The event was not occasioned
exclusively by force majeure but a human factor – negligence – had
intervened. Hence, the fortuitous event became humanized.
 Also, as regards easements of water, SC said that where the waters
which flow from a higher state are those which are artificially
collected in man-made lagoons, any damage occasioned thereby
entitles the owner of the lower or servient estate to compensation.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 19 October 1995 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the
Regional Trial Court-Br. 16, Lipa City, holding petitioner Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN) liable to private
respondent Crispin E. Lat for damages and to indemnify the latter P186,975.00 for lost profits for three (3) crop
years and P30,000.00 as attorneys fees, is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.