Austria vs Court Of Appeals
GR No. L-29640
June 10, 191
NA!"R#$ Guillermo Austria petitions for the review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, on the sole issue of whether in a contract of agency (consignment of goods for sale) it is necessary that there be prior conviction for robbery before the loss of the article shall exempt the consignee from liability for such loss. %AC!&
On an. !"#!, $aria G. Abad ac%nowledged having received from Guillermo Austria one (!) pendant with diamonds valued at &',., to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on demand.* On +eb. !"#!, however, while wal%ing home Abad was said to have been accosted by two men, who hit her and snatched her purse containing the pieces of ewelry and cash. -he incident became the subect of a criminal case against certain persons. As Abad failed to return the ewelry or pay for its value notwithstanding demands, Austria Austria brought an action against her and her husband for recovery of the pendant or of its value, and damages. Answering the allegations of the complaint, defendants spouses set up the defense that the alleged robbery had extinguished their obligation. -rial court rendered udgment for the plaintiff. t was held that defendants failed to prove the fact of robbery, or, if indeed indeed it was commit committed ted,, that that defend defendant ant $aria $aria Abad Abad was guilty guilty of neglig negligenc encee when when she went went home home witho without ut any companion, although it was already getting dar% and she was carrying a large amount of cash and valuables on the day in /uestion, and such negligence did not free her from liability for damages for the loss of the ewelry. CA reversed the udgment on the basis of the lac% of credibility of the two defense witnesses who testified on the occurrence of the robbery, and holding that the facts of robbery and defendant $aria Abad0s possession of the pendant on that unfortunate day have been duly established, declared respondents not responsible for the loss of the ewelry on account of a fortuitous event. &laintiff thereupon instituted the present proceeding. '&&"# !. 1hether or not Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was robbery robber y in the case, thus extinguishing extinguishing Abad2s Abad2s liability, liability, although nobody has been found guilty of the supposed crime. 3. 1hether or not Abad was guilty of negligence. (#L)
!. 4o. -o constitute a caso fortuito that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary that (!) the event must be independent of the human will (or rather, of the debtor0s or obligor0s)5 (3) the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner, and that (6) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the inury to the creditor. -he point at issue in this proceeding is how the fact of robbery is to be established in order that a person ma y avail of the exempting provision of Article !!7' of the new Civil Code, which reads as follows89 A:-. !!7'. ;xcept in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation re/uires the assumption of ris%, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.9 -he emphasis of the provision is on the events, not on the agents or factors responsible for them. -o avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not necessary that the persons responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished5 it would only be sufficient to establish that the unforeseeable event, the robbery in this case, did ta%e place preponderant evidence. without any concurrent fault on the debtor0s part, and this can be done by preponderant 3. 4o. t is undeniable that in order to completely exonerate the debtor for reason of a fortuitous event, such debtor must also be free of any concurrent or contributory fault or negligence. -his is apparent from Article !!7 of the Civil Code of the &hilippines, providing that8 9A:-. 9A:-. !!7. -hose 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 for damages.9* t is clear that under the circumstances prevailing at present in the City of $anila $anila and its suburbs, with their high incidence incidence of crimes against persons and property, property, that renders travel after nightfall a matter to be sedulously avoided without suitable precaution and protection. -he conduct of respondent $aria G. Abad, in returning alone to her house in the evening, carrying ewelry of considerable value, would be negligent per se, and would not exempt her from responsibility responsibility in the case of a robbery. 1e are not persuaded, however, that the same rule should obtain ten years previously, in !"#!, when the robbery in /uestion did ta%e place, for at that time criminality had not by far reached the levels attained in the present day.
)isposition$ &etition in this case is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
