the robbery in this case, did take place without any concurrent

fault on the debtor's part, and this can be done by preponderant

evidence. To require, moreover. prior conviction in order to
establish robbery as a fact, would demand proof beyond
reasonable doubt to prove a fact in a civil case.

PETITION for review by certiorari from a decision of the

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 527 Court of Appeals.
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Antonio Enrile Inton for petitioner.
56
     Jose A. Buendia for respondents.
GUILLERMO AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF REYES, J.B.L., J.:
APPEALS (Second Division), PACIFICO ABAD and
MARIA G. ABAD, respondents. Guillermo Austria petitions for the review of the decision
rendered by the Court of Appeals (in CA-G.R. No. 33572-R),
on the sole issue of whether in a contract of agency
Words and phrases; Requisites of fortuitous event.—It is
(consignment of goods for sale) it is necessary that there be
recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute a caso fortuito
prior conviction for robbery before the loss of the article
that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary
shall exempt the consignee from liability for such loss.
that (1) the event must be independent of the human will (or
In a receipt dated 30 January 1961, Maria G. Abad
rather, of the debtor's or obligor's); (2) the occurrence must render
acknowledged having received from Guillermo Austria one
it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal
(1) pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00, to be sold
manner; and that (3) the obligor must be free of participation in,
on commission basis or to be returned on demand. On 1
or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor (Reyes & Puno,
February 1961, however, while walking home to her
Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol. IV, pages 25-26, citing
residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Abad was said to have
Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661). A fortuitous event, therefore,
been accosted by two men, one of whom hit her on the face,
can be produced by nature, e.g., earthquakes.
while the other snatched her purse containing
528 529

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 529

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
jewelry and cash, and ran away. Among the pieces of
storms, floods, etc., or by the act of man, such as war, attack by jewelry allegedly taken by the robbers was the consigned
bandits, robbery, (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, pendant. The incident became the subject of a criminal case
1962 ed., page 117, citing 3 Salvat 83-84), provided that the event filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against certain
has all the characteristics ennumerated above. persons (Criminal Case No. 10649, People vs. Rene Garcia,
et al.).
Agency; Receipt of thing for sale on commission basis; Robbery
As Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value
as defense against civil action for loss of thing.—Where MA
notwithstanding demands, Austria brought in the Court of
received from GA a pendant with diamonds to be sold on
First Instance of Manila an action against her and her
commission basis, which MA later on failed to return because of a
husband f or recovery of the pendant or of its value, and
robbery committed upon her, it is not necessary that there be a
damages. Answering the allegations of the complaint,
conviction for robbery for MA to be relieved from civil liability of
defendants spouses set up the defense that the alleged
returning the pendant under Art, 1174, New Civil Code, as it
robbery had extinguished their obligation.
would only be sufficient to establish that the unforseeable event,
 After due hearing, the trial court rendered judgment for It is recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute a
the plaintiff, and ordered defendants spouses, jointly and caso fortuito that would exempt a person from
severally, to pay to the former the sum of P4,500.00, with responsibility, it is necessary that (1) the event must be
legal interest thereon, plus the amount of P450.00 as independent of the human will (or rather, of the debtor's or
reasonable attorneys' fees, and the costs. It was held that obligor's); (2) the occurrence must render it impossible for
defendants failed to prove the fact of robbery, or, if indeed the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and
it was committed, that defendant Maria Abad was guilty of that (3) the obligor must be free of participation
1
in, or
negligence when she went home without any companion, aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. A fortuitous
although it was already getting dark and she was carrying event, therefore, can be produced by nature, e.g.,
a large amount of cash and valuables on the day in! earthquakes, storms, floods, etc., or2 by the act of man, such
question, and such negligence did not free her from liability as war, attack by bandits, robbery, etc., provided that the
for damages for the loss of the jewelry. event has all the characteristics enumerated above.
Not satisfied with his decision, the defendants went to It is not here disputed that if respondent Maria Abad
the Court of Appeals, and there secured a reversal of the were indeed the victim of robbery, and if it were really true
judgment. The appellate court, overruling the finding of the that the pendant, which she was obliged either to
trial court on the lack of credibility of the two defense
witnesses who testified on the occurrence of the robbery, _______________
and holding that the facts of robbery and defendant Maria
Abad's possession of the pendant on that unfortunate day 1 Reyes & Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol. IV, pages 25-26,
have been duly established, declared respondents not citing Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661.
responsible for the loss of the jewelry on account of a 2 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., page 117,
fortuitous event, and relieved them from liability for citing 3 Salvat 83-84.
damages to the owner. Plaintiff thereupon instituted the
531
present proceeding.

530
VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 531
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Austria vs. Court of Appeals sell on commission or to return to petitioner, were taken
during the robbery, then the occurrence of that fortuitous
It is now contended by herein petitioner that the Court of event would have extinguished her liability. The point at
Appeals erred in finding that there was robbery in the case, issue in this proceeding is how the fact of robbery is to be
although nobody has been f ound guilty of the supposed established in order that a person may avail of the
crime. It is petitioner's theory that for robbery to fall under exempting provision of Article 1174 of the new Civil Code,
the category of a fortuitous event and relieve the obligor which reads as follows:
from his obligation under a contract, pursuant to Article
"ART. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it
1174 of the new Civil Code, there ought to be prior finding
is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
on the guilt of the persons responsible therefor. In short,
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
that the occurrence of the robbery should be proved by a
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
final judgment of conviction in the criminal case. To adopt
though foreseen, were inevitable."
a different view, petitioner argues, would be to encourage
persons accountable for .goods or properties received in It may be noted the reform that the emphasis of the
trust or consignment to connive with others, who would be provision is on the events, not on the agents or factors
willing to be accused in court for the robbery, in order to be responsible for them. To avail of the exemption granted in
absolved from civil liability for the loss or disappearance of the law, it is not necessary that the persons responsible for
the entrusted articles. the occurrence should be found or punished; it would only
We find no merit in the contention of petitioner. be sufficient to establish that the unforeseeable event, the
robbery in this case, did take place without any concurrent finding that a robbery has happened would not necessarily
fault on the debtor's part, and this can be done by mean that those accused in- the criminal action should be
preponderant evidence. To require in the present action for found guilty of the crime; nor would a ruling that those
recovery the prior conviction of the culprits in the criminal actually accused did not commit the robbery be
case, in order to establish the robbery as a fact, would be to inconsistent with a finding that a robbery did take place.
demand proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove a f act in a The evidence to establish these facts would not necessarily
civil case. be the same.
It is undeniable that in order to completely exonerate WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision of the
the debtor for reason of a fortuitous event, such debtor Court of Appeals under review, the petition in this case is
must, in addition to the casus itself, be free3 of any hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
concurrent or contributory fault or negligence, This is
apparent from Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the           Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Philippines, providing that: Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar,
JJ., concur.
"ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are      Castro, J., did not take part.
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages." Petition dismissed.

It is clear that under the circumstances prevailing at Notes.—Force majeure or fortuitous event; what con-
present in the City of Manila and its suburbs, with their stitutes.—For caso fortuito or force majeure (which in law
are identical in so far as they exempt an obligor from
_______________ liability), by definition, are extraordinary events

3 V. Lachica vs. Gayoso, 48 Off. Gaz. (No. 1) 205, and cases cited; 533

Lanaso Fruit SS Co. vs. Univ. Ins. Co., 82 L. Ed. 422.

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 533
532
Señeres vs. Frias

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

not foreseeable or avoidable, "events that could not be
Austria vs. Court of Appeals foreseen, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable." It is,
therefore, not enough. that the event could not have been
high Incidence of crimes against persons and property, that foreseen or anticipated, but it must be one impossible to
renders travel after nightfall a matter to be sedulously foresee or avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the
avoided without suitable precaution and protection, the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.
conduct of respondent Maria G. Abad, in returning alone to (Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, L-21749,
her house in the evening, carrying jewelry of considerable Sept. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 279).
value, would be negligent per se, and would not exempt her Other examples of casus fortuitus.—See Chan Keep vs.
from responsibility in the case of a robbery. We are not Chan Gioco, 14 Phil. 5; Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific
persuaded, however, that the same rule should obtain ten Co., 7 Phil. 359; Crame Sy Panco vs. Gonzaga, 10 Phil. 646;
years previously, in 1961, when the robbery in question did Novo & Co. vs. Ainsworth, 38 Phil. 267; Lizares vs.
take place, for at that time criminality had not by far Hernaez, 40 Phil. 981; Garcia vs. Escudero, 43 Phil. 437;
reached the levels attained in the present day. Milan vs. Rio, 45 Phil. 718.
There is likewise no merit in petitioner's argument that
to allow the fact of robbery to be recognized in the civil case _______________
before conviction is secured in the criminal action, would
prejudice the latter case, or would result in inconsistency
should the accused obtain an acquittal or should the
criminal case be dismissed. It must be realized that a court
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.