G.R. No. L-29640 - Austria vs. Court of Appeals

On January 30, 1961, petitioner Guillermo Austria delivered to respondent Maria G. Abad one pendant with diamonds valued at ₱4,500.00, under a contract of agency (consignment) to sell on commission or return on demand.
A written receipt was executed by Maria G. Abad acknowledging the consignment.

On February 1, 1961, while walking home to her residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Maria G. Abad was accosted by two men—one struck her in the face and the other snatched her purse containing jewelry and cash.
Among the items stolen was the pendant consigned by Austria.

A criminal complaint (People v. Rene Garcia, et al., CFI Rizal, Crim. Case No. 10649) was filed against certain individuals for the robbery.
Austria sued Maria G. Abad and her husband in the Court of First Instance of Manila for recovery of the pendant or its value, plus damages and attorneys’ fees.
The trial court (CFI Manila) found no proof of robbery—or, if robbery occurred, held Abad negligent in returning home alone with valuables after dark—and rendered judgment for Austria in the amount of ₱4,500.00, plus legal interest, ₱450.00 attorneys’ fees, and costs.

On appeal (CA G.R. No. 33572-R), the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the robbery proved by credible defense witnesses and respondent free of negligence.
The appellate court held the loss of the pendant to be a fortuitous event under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, thus exempting respondents from liability.

Austria filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, contending that to classify the loss as a fortuitous event by robbery, there must first be a final conviction of the robbers.

Whether, under a contract of agency (consignment), loss of goods by robbery can be deemed a fortuitous event exempting the consignee from liability absent a prior criminal conviction of the perpetrators.