Vol. IV, 1962 ed.

, page 117, citing 3 Salvat 83-84), provided

that the event has all the characteristics ennumerated above.
Agency; Receipt of thing for sale on commission basis;
Robbery as defense against civil action for loss of thing.—
Where MA received from GA a pendant with diamonds to be
sold on commission basis, which MA later on failed to return
VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 527 because of a robbery committed upon her, it is not necessary
that there be a conviction for robbery for MA to be relieved
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
from civil liability of returning the pendant under Art, 1174,
New Civil Code, as it would only be sufficient to establish
56 that the unforseeable event, the robbery in this case, did take
place without any concurrent fault on the debtor's part, and
GUILLERMO AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT this can be done by preponderant evidence. To require,
OF APPEALS (Second Division), PACIFICO ABAD moreover. prior conviction in order to establish robbery as a
and MARIA G. ABAD, respondents. fact, would demand proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove a
fact in a civil case.
Words and phrases; Requisites of fortuitous event.—It is
PETITION for review by certiorari from a decision of
recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute a caso
the Court of Appeals.
fortuito that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is
necessary that (1) the event must be independent of the The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
human will (or rather, of the debtor's or obligor's); (2) the      Antonio Enrile Inton for petitioner.
occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill      Jose A. Buendia for respondents.
the obligation in a normal manner; and that (3) the obligor
must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury REYES, J.B.L., J.:
to the creditor (Reyes & Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil
Law, Vol. IV, pages 25-26, citing Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. Guillermo Austria petitions for the review of the
657, 661). A fortuitous event, therefore, can be produced by decision rendered by the Court of Appeals (in CA-G.R.
nature, e.g., earthquakes. No. 33572-R), on the sole issue of whether in a contract
of agency (consignment of goods for sale) it is necessary
528 that there be prior conviction for robbery before the
loss of the article shall exempt the consignee from
liability for such loss.
In a receipt dated 30 January 1961, Maria G. Abad
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED acknowledged having received from Guillermo Austria
Austria vs. Court of Appeals one (1) pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00, to
be sold on commission basis or to be returned on
demand. On 1 February 1961, however, while walking
storms, floods, etc., or by the act of man, such as war, attack home to her residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Abad
by bandits, robbery, (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, was said to have been accosted by two men, one of
whom hit her on the face, while the other snatched her of the robbery, and holding that the facts of robbery
purse containing and defendant Maria Abad's possession of the pendant
on that unfortunate day have been duly established,
529
declared respondents not responsible for the loss of the
jewelry on account of a fortuitous event, and relieved
VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 529 them from liability for damages to the owner. Plaintiff
thereupon instituted the present proceeding.
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
530
jewelry and cash, and ran away. Among the pieces of
jewelry allegedly taken by the robbers was the 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
consigned pendant. The incident became the subject of
a criminal case filed in the Court of First Instance of Austria vs. Court of Appeals
Rizal against certain persons (Criminal Case No.
10649, People vs. Rene Garcia, et al.). It is now contended by herein petitioner that the Court
As Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its of Appeals erred in finding that there was robbery in
value notwithstanding demands, Austria brought in the case, although nobody has been f ound guilty of the
the Court of First Instance of Manila an action against supposed crime. It is petitioner's theory that for
her and her husband f or recovery of the pendant or of robbery to fall under the category of a fortuitous event
its value, and damages. Answering the allegations of and relieve the obligor from his obligation under a
the complaint, defendants spouses set up the defense contract, pursuant to Article 1174 of the new Civil
that the alleged robbery had extinguished their Code, there ought to be prior finding on the guilt of the
obligation. persons responsible therefor. In short, that the
After due hearing, the trial court rendered occurrence of the robbery should be proved by a final
judgment for the plaintiff, and ordered defendants judgment of conviction in the criminal case. To adopt a
spouses, jointly and severally, to pay to the former the different view, petitioner argues, would be to
sum of P4,500.00, with legal interest thereon, plus the encourage persons accountable for .goods or properties
amount of P450.00 as reasonable attorneys' fees, and received in trust or consignment to connive with
the costs. It was held that defendants failed to prove others, who would be willing to be accused in court for
the fact of robbery, or, if indeed it was committed, that the robbery, in order to be absolved from civil liability
defendant Maria Abad was guilty of negligence when for the loss or disappearance of the entrusted articles.
she went home without any companion, although it We find no merit in the contention of petitioner.
was already getting dark and she was carrying a large It is recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute
amount of cash and valuables on the day in! question, a caso fortuito that would exempt a person from
and such negligence did not free her from liability for responsibility, it is necessary that (1) the event must
damages for the loss of the jewelry. be independent of the human will (or rather, of the
Not satisfied with his decision, the defendants went debtor's or obligor's); (2) the occurrence must render it
to the Court of Appeals, and there secured a reversal of impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a
the judgment. The appellate court, overruling the normal manner; and that (3) the obligor must be free of
finding of the trial court on the lack of credibility of the participation
1
in, or aggravation of, the injury to the
two defense witnesses who testified on the occurrence creditor. A fortuitous event, therefore, can be produced
by nature, e.g., earthquakes, storms, floods, etc., or by punished; it would only be sufficient to establish that
the act 2 of man, such as war, attack by bandits, the unforeseeable event, the robbery in this case, did
robbery, etc., provided that the event has all the take place without any concurrent fault on the debtor's
characteristics enumerated above. part, and this can be done by preponderant evidence.
It is not here disputed that if respondent Maria To require in the present action for recovery the prior
Abad were indeed the victim of robbery, and if it were conviction of the culprits in the criminal case, in order
really true that the pendant, which she was obliged to establish the robbery as a fact, would be to demand
either to proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove a f act in a civil
case.
_______________ It is undeniable that in order to completely
exonerate the debtor for reason of a fortuitous event,
1 Reyes & Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol. IV, pages such debtor must, in addition to the casus itself, be free3
25-26, citing Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661. of any concurrent or contributory fault or negligence,
2 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., page This is apparent from Article 1170 of the Civil Code of
117, citing 3 Salvat 83-84. the Philippines, providing that:
531 "ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable
VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 531
for damages."
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
It is clear that under the circumstances prevailing at
sell on commission or to return to petitioner, were present in the City of Manila and its suburbs, with
taken during the robbery, then the occurrence of that their
fortuitous event would have extinguished her liability.
The point at issue in this proceeding is how the fact of _______________
robbery is to be established in order that a person may
3 V. Lachica vs. Gayoso, 48 Off. Gaz. (No. 1) 205, and cases cited;
avail of the exempting provision of Article 1174 of the
Lanaso Fruit SS Co. vs. Univ. Ins. Co., 82 L. Ed. 422.
new Civil Code, which reads as follows:
532
"ART. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
person shall be responsible for those events which could not
Austria vs. Court of Appeals
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable."

It may be noted the reform that the emphasis of the high Incidence of crimes against persons and property,
provision is on the events, not on the agents or factors that renders travel after nightfall a matter to be
responsible for them. To avail of the exemption granted sedulously avoided without suitable precaution and
in the law, it is not necessary that the persons protection, the conduct of respondent Maria G. Abad,
responsible for the occurrence should be found or in returning alone to her house in the evening,
carrying jewelry of considerable value, would be VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 533
negligent per se, and would not exempt her from Señeres vs. Frias
responsibility in the case of a robbery. We are not
persuaded, however, that the same rule should obtain
not foreseeable or avoidable, "events that could not be
ten years previously, in 1961, when the robbery in
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable." It
question did take place, for at that time criminality
is, therefore, not enough. that the event could not have
had not by far reached the levels attained in the
been foreseen or anticipated, but it must be one
present day.
impossible to foresee or avoid. The mere difficulty to
There is likewise no merit in petitioner's argument
foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee
that to allow the fact of robbery to be recognized in the
the same. (Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation,
civil case before conviction is secured in the criminal
L-21749, Sept. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 279).
action, would prejudice the latter case, or would result
Other examples of casus fortuitus.—See Chan Keep
in inconsistency should the accused obtain an acquittal
vs. Chan Gioco, 14 Phil. 5; Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf &
or should the criminal case be dismissed. It must be
Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359; Crame Sy Panco vs. Gonzaga,
realized that a court finding that a robbery has
10 Phil. 646; Novo & Co. vs. Ainsworth, 38 Phil. 267;
happened would not necessarily mean that those
Lizares vs. Hernaez, 40 Phil. 981; Garcia vs. Escudero,
accused in- the criminal action should be found guilty
43 Phil. 437; Milan vs. Rio, 45 Phil. 718.
of the crime; nor would a ruling that those actually
accused did not commit the robbery be inconsistent _______________
with a finding that a robbery did take place. The
evidence to establish these facts would not necessarily
be the same.
WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision of
the Court of Appeals under review, the petition in this
case is hereby dismissed, with costs against the
petitioner. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

     Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,

Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.
     Castro, J., did not take part.

Petition dismissed.

Notes.—Force majeure or fortuitous event; what con-

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
533