​Floods of Greed, Failures of Duty: Part 2

By: Atty. Jose Manolo V. Garcia
Founding and Managing Partner (GERA LAW)

Floods do not come from the heavens, they come from greed, neglect and the failure of duty. This 3-part series breaks down why we drown, who should be held responsible and why accountability is not optional.

Part 2
 Ministerial Duty. Why Local Government Units Can Be Held Liable

Flood control is not optional, it is the duty of the Local Government Units (LGUs). And when duty is ignored, lives and livelihoods are lost.

The law is clear, flood control is a ministerial duty of local governments, not a favor. Negligence has legal consequences. When public officials fail to do what the law requires, they open themselves to liability because their failure costs lives, homes & futures.
 
You can sue your city or municipality for vehicle damage from flooding.

Local government units (LGUs) are suable. By law they have corporate personality and the power to sue and be sued.

LGUs have a duty to manage drainage/flood control. The Local Government Code (LGC) makes drainage, sewerage & flood control projects part of basic LGU services. Supreme Court rulings have squarely said flood prevention is principally an LGU responsibility.   The LGC establishes a ministerial/operational duty to plan, maintain, clear, warn & respond.   

A matter of causation plus damages. Under the Civil Code, one can recover damages for proven repair/replacement, towing, loss of use, etc. (insurer gets subrogation if it paid).  

These contractors/concessionaires, that built/maintained drains or flood control works, should be sued on quasi-delict and must have solidary liability among tortfeasors under Art. 2194 of the Civil Code. 

As regards the “who controls” test. For injuries & property damage (like cars), Art. 2189 and Art. 2176 of the Civil Code pin cities/municipalities when the public work was under their control/supervision.

In City of Manila vs. Teotico (G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968) it was held that the LGU is liable where defective public works under its control/supervision cause injury, ownership is not required.  

In Filinvest Land Inc. vs. Flood-Affected Homeowners of Meritiville Alliance (G.R. No. 165955, August 10, 2007) case, the SC underscored that flood control is primarily an LGU responsibility.

In the landmark case, Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Firme (G.R. No. 52179, April 8, 1991), the SC ruled on Suability vs. liability, immunity arguments do not save operational negligence.
 
When leaders fail their duty, the law must not fail the people. Accountability starts with those sworn to protect us.