SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11.

오전 1(32

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 527

Austria vs. Court of Appeals

56

GUILLERMO AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF

APPEALS (Second Division), PACIFICO ABAD and
MARIA G. ABAD, respondents.

Words and phrases; Requisites of fortuitous event.·It is

recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute a caso fortuito that
would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary that (1)
the event must be independent of the human will (or rather, of the
debtor's or obligor's); (2) the occurrence must render it impossible
for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and that
(3) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the
injury to the creditor (Reyes & Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil
Law, Vol. IV, pages 25-26, citing Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661).
A fortuitous event, therefore, can be produced by nature, e.g.,
earthquakes.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Austria vs. Court of Appeals

storms, floods, etc., or by the act of man, such as war, attack by

bandits, robbery, (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 1/7페이지
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11. 오전 1(32

from GA a pendant with diamonds to be sold on commission basis,

which MA later on failed to return because of a robbery committed
upon her, it is not necessary that there be a conviction for robbery
for MA to be relieved from civil liability of returning the pendant
under Art, 1174, New Civil Code, as it would only be sufficient to
establish that the unforseeable event, 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

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Antonio Enrile Inton for petitioner.
Jose A. Buendia for respondents.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

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
(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.
In a receipt dated 30 January 1961, Maria G. Abad
acknowledged having received from Guillermo Austria 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 home to her
residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Abad was said to have
been accosted by two men, one of whom hit her on the face,
while the other snatched her purse containing

529

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 529

Austria vs. Court of Appeals

jewelry and cash, and ran away. Among the pieces of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 2/7페이지
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11. 오전 1(32

jewelry allegedly taken by the robbers was the consigned

pendant. The incident became the subject of a criminal case
filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against certain
persons (Criminal Case No. 10649, People vs. Rene Garcia,
et al.).
As Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value
notwithstanding demands, Austria brought in the Court of
First Instance of Manila an action against her and her
husband f or 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.
After due hearing, the trial court rendered judgment for
the plaintiff, and ordered defendants spouses, jointly and
severally, to pay to the former the sum of P4,500.00, with
legal interest thereon, plus the amount of P450.00 as
reasonable attorneys' fees, and the costs. It was held that
defendants failed to prove the fact of robbery, or, if indeed it
was committed, that defendant Maria Abad was guilty of
negligence when she went home without any companion,
although it was already getting dark and she was carrying
a large amount of cash and valuables on the day in!
question, and such negligence did not free her from liability
for damages for the loss of the jewelry.
Not satisfied with his decision, the defendants went to
the Court of Appeals, and there secured a reversal of the
judgment. The appellate court, overruling the finding of the
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
have been duly established, declared respondents not
responsible for the loss of the jewelry on account of a
fortuitous event, and relieved them from liability for
damages to the owner. Plaintiff thereupon instituted the
present proceeding.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Austria vs. Court of Appeals

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 3/7페이지
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11. 오전 1(32

It is now contended by herein petitioner that the Court of

Appeals erred in finding that there was robbery in the case,
although nobody has been f ound guilty of the supposed
crime. It is petitioner's theory that for robbery to fall under
the category of a fortuitous event and relieve the obligor
from his obligation under a contract, pursuant to Article
1174 of the new Civil Code, there ought to be prior finding
on the guilt of the persons responsible therefor. In short,
that the occurrence of the robbery should be proved by a
final judgment of conviction in the criminal case. To adopt a
different view, petitioner argues, would be to encourage
persons accountable for .goods or properties received in
trust or consignment to connive with others, who would be
willing to be accused in court for the robbery, in order to be
absolved from civil liability for the loss or disappearance of
the entrusted articles.
We find no merit in the contention of petitioner.
It is recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute a
caso fortuito that would exempt a person from
responsibility, it is necessary that (1) the event must be
independent of the human will (or rather, of the debtor's or
obligor's); (2) the occurrence must render it impossible for
the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and
that (3) the obligor must be free of participation
1
in, or
aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. A fortuitous
event, therefore, can be produced by nature, e.g.,
earthquakes, storms, floods, etc., or2 by the act of man, such
as war, attack by bandits, robbery, etc., provided that the
event has all the characteristics enumerated above.
It is not here disputed that if respondent Maria Abad
were indeed the victim of robbery, and if it were really true
that the pendant, which she was obliged either to

_______________

1 Reyes & Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Vol. IV, pages 25-26,
citing Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil. 657, 661.
2 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., page 117,
citing 3 Salvat 83-84.

531

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 4/7페이지
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11. 오전 1(32

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 531

Austria vs. Court of Appeals

sell on commission or to return to petitioner, were taken

during the robbery, then the occurrence of that 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 avail of the
exempting provision of Article 1174 of the new Civil Code,
which reads as follows:

"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 person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable."

It may be noted the reform that the emphasis of the

provision is on the events, not on the agents or factors
responsible for them. To avail of the exemption granted in
the law, it is not necessary that the persons responsible for
the occurrence should be found or punished; it would only
be sufficient to establish that the unforeseeable event, 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 in the present action for
recovery the prior conviction of the culprits in the criminal
case, in order to establish the robbery as a fact, would be to
demand 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, such debtor
must, in addition to the casus itself, be free3 of any
concurrent or contributory fault or negligence, This is
apparent from Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, providing that:

"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 for damages."

It is clear that under the circumstances prevailing at

present in the City of Manila and its suburbs, with their

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 5/7페이지
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11. 오전 1(32

_______________

3 V. Lachica vs. Gayoso, 48 Off. Gaz. (No. 1) 205, and cases cited;
Lanaso Fruit SS Co. vs. Univ. Ins. Co., 82 L. Ed. 422.

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Austria vs. Court of Appeals

high Incidence of crimes against persons and property, that

renders travel after nightfall a matter to be sedulously
avoided without suitable precaution and protection, the
conduct of respondent Maria G. Abad, in returning alone to
her house in the evening, carrying jewelry of considerable
value, would be negligent per se, and would not exempt her
from responsibility in the case of a robbery. We are not
persuaded, however, that the same rule should obtain ten
years previously, in 1961, when the robbery in question did
take place, for at that time criminality had not by far
reached the levels attained in the present day.
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
finding that a robbery has happened would not necessarily
mean that those accused in- the criminal action should be
found guilty 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.

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

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 6/7페이지
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 039 2019. 7. 11. 오전 1(32

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

VOL. 39, JUNE 10, 1971 533

Señeres vs. Frias

not foreseeable or avoidable, "events that could not be

foreseen, or which, though foreseen, are inevitable." It is,
therefore, not enough. that the event could not have been
foreseen or anticipated, but it must be one impossible to
foresee or avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the
happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.
(Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, L-21749,
Sept. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 279).
Other examples of casus fortuitus.·See Chan Keep vs.
Chan Gioco, 14 Phil. 5; Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific
Co., 7 Phil. 359; Crame Sy Panco vs. Gonzaga, 10 Phil. 646;
Novo & Co. vs. Ainsworth, 38 Phil. 267; Lizares vs.
Hernaez, 40 Phil. 981; Garcia vs. Escudero, 43 Phil. 437;
Milan vs. Rio, 45 Phil. 718.

_______________

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bdcedb2e8e2de1489003600fb002c009e/p/APN365/?username=Guest 7/7페이지