Spouses Digma v. Antel Holdings, Inc.
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 238126, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 6, 2018. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling of the Office of the President that Antel Holdings, Inc. should not be held liable for the damages caused to the petitioners, Spouses Ariel N. Digma and Atty. Grace D. Crisostomo-Digma, by flooding. The Court ruled that the petitioners failed to show that the flooding was caused by Antel's change in the elevation of the subdivision plan. Instead, the flooding was caused by Typhoon Milenyo and the collapse of a nearby dam, which are fortuitous events that negate Antel's liability. The Court also found that the petitioners' claim of numerous violations of Presidential Decree No. 957 was unsubstantiated.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238126. June 6, 2018.]
SPOUSES ARIEL N. DIGMA AND ATTY. GRACE D. CRISOSTOMO-DIGMA, petitioners, vs.ANTEL HOLDINGS, INC., FELICITAS D. ONG, ELENA D. JAO, RICHARD L. LAO, PLAZA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, * AND ANTONIO L. ONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 238126 (Spouses Ariel N. Digma and Atty. Grace D. Crisostomo-Digma v. Antel Holdings, Inc., Felicitas D. Ong, Elena D. Jao, Richard L. Lao, Plaza Realty and Development Corporation, and Antonio L. Ong)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 31, 2017 Decision 1 and March 14, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136917 for failure of petitioners Spouses Ariel N. Digma and Atty. Grace D. Crisostomo-Digma (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the ruling of the Office of the President, which found that respondent Antel Holdings, Inc. (Antel) should not be held liable for the damages caused to petitioners brought about by flooding.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners failed to show that the flooding of their property was caused by Antel's change in the elevation of the subdivision plan. Records show that the elevation of 4.8 meters was duly approved by the municipal governments of Kawit (as evinced by the issued alteration permit) and Noveleta (as evinced by the issued development permit), which the primary obligation to control flooding within the area devolves upon. 3 Instead, the flooding in this case was solely brought about by Typhoon Milenyo and aggravated by the collapse of a nearby dam, events which are clearly fortuitous in nature, and hence, negate Antel's alleged liability therefor. Likewise, petitioners' claim of numerous violations of Presidential Decree No. 957 was aptly found to be unsubstantiated since the certificate of completion issued in Antel's favor belies the same. Notably, the foregoing constitutes factual findings, and thus, are generally beyond the pale of a Rule 45 petition. 4
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Erroneously referred as "Development Corp." in the CA Decision.
1. Rollo, pp. 35-47. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
2. Id. at 49-50.
3. Filinvest Land, Inc. v. Flood-Affected Homeowners of Meritville Alliance, 556 Phil. 622, 631 (2007).
4. Dinamling v. People, 761 Phil. 356, 367 (2015); citations omitted.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU