Juntilla v.

Fontanar Digest

Facts: Petitioners lost their children in a shipwreck involving the vessel of private respondent
when it sailed despite a typhoon.

Issue: Is the shipwreck a fortuitous event (caso Fortuito)?

Is the respondent liable?

Ruling:

1) No. It is not a caso fortuito. The elements to consider in sustaining a case of caso fortuito are
the ff: 1) the event must be independent of the human will, 2) the occurrence must render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner, 3) the obligor must be free
of participation in, aggravation of, the injury to the creditor,

2) Petitioners are liable as it is not a caso fortutito. There is no caso fortuito when the ship
captain proceeded en route despite a typhoon advice close to the area where the vessel will
pass. Moreover, the Board of Marines inquiry conclusion that the ship captain was not
negligent is not binding on the Court when said finding is not complete. The liability of the ship
owner also extends to the value of vessel and the insurance proceeds thereon.
 Eastern Shipping vs CA
GR No. 97412, 12 July 1994
234 SCRA 78

FACTS
Two fiber drums were shipped owned by Eastern Shipping from Japan. The shipment as
insured with a marine policy. Upon arrival in Manila unto the custody of metro Port Service,
which excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order and which damage was unknown the
Mercantile Insurance Company. Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from
Metro, one drum opened and without seal. Allied delivered the shipment to the consignees
warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained spillages while the rest of the
contents was adulterated/fake. As consequence of the loss, the insurance company paid the
consignee, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of consignee against the
defendants Eastern Shipping, Metro Port and Allied Brokerage. The insurance company filed
before the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff an ordered defendants to pay the
former with present legal interest of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint.
On appeal by defendants, the appellate court denied the same and affirmed in toto the decision
of the trial court.

ISSUE
(1) Whether the applicable rate of legal interest is 12% or 6%.

(2) Whether the payment of legal interest on the award for loss or damage is to be computed from
the time the complaint is filed from the date the decision appealed from is rendered.

HELD
(1) The Court held that the legal interest is 6% computed from the decision of the
court a quo. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached,
an interest on the amount of damaes awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at
the rate of 6% per annum. No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages
except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.

When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and
executor, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until satisfaction,
this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of money.

The interest due shall be 12% PA to be computed fro default, J or EJD.

(2) From the date the judgment is made. Where the demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
EJ but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made,
the interest shll begin to run only from the date of judgment of the court is made.

(3) The Court held that it should be computed from the decision rendered by the court a quo.