Facts:

Guillermo Austria is the petitioner in this case, while the respondents are the Court of Appeals (Second Division), Pacifico Abad, and Maria G. Abad. The events leading to the case began on January 30, 1961, when Maria G. Abad issued a receipt acknowledging the receipt of a diamond pendant valued at P4,500 from Austria to be sold on a commission basis. On February 1, 1961, while walking home to her residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Abad was accosted by two men; one assaulted her while the other seized her purse containing jewelry and cash. Among the stolen items was the consigned pendant. The robbery became the subject of a criminal case against unidentified individuals (Criminal Case No. 10649, People vs. Rene Garcia, et al.) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Despite subsequent demands for the return of the jewelry or payment for its value, Abad failed to comply. Thus, Austria filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Abad and her husband for recove

...

Facts:

Consignment Agreement and Delivery

• Guillermo Austria, the petitioner, consigned one pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00 to Maria G. Abad under a contract of agency (or consignment of goods for sale).
• A receipt dated 30 January 1961 evidences Abad’s acknowledgment of having received the pendant, with the understanding that she was to sell it on commission or return it on demand.

Robbery Incident

• On 1 February 1961, while returning home to her residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Maria G. Abad was allegedly accosted by two men.
• The incident involved one man striking her on the face while the other snatched her purse, which contained cash and various pieces of jewelry, including the consigned pendant.
• The robbery subsequently became the subject of a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 10649, People vs. Rene Garcia, et al.) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Initiation of the Civil Action

• Following Abad’s failure to return the consigned pendant or to pay for its value despite repeated demands, Austria filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• The action sought either the recovery of the pendant or its monetary equivalent, plus damages.

Trial Court Decision

• In the initial trial, the court assessed the defense raised by the respondents—that the alleged robbery exempted Maria G. Abad from liability—and examined her conduct.
• The trial court concluded that the defendants had not established the occurrence of robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
• Even if robbery had occurred, Abad’s decision to travel alone in the dark while carrying valuables was deemed negligent, thereby not exonerating her from liability.
• Consequently, defendants (Abad and her husband) were ordered jointly and severally to pay Austria P4,500.00, plus P450.00 for attorneys’ fees and additional costs.

Court of Appeals Ruling

• The defendants appealed the trial court’s decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment.
• The appellate court gave weight to the testimony of two defense witnesses (despite earlier credibility concerns) and found that the facts establishing the robbery were sufficiently corroborated.
• It declared that the robbery was a fortuitous event under which Maria G. Abad was exempt from liability for the loss of the jewelry.

Petitioner's Argument on Appeal

• Guillermo Austria contended that for a fortuitous event like robbery to relieve a party of liability under a consignment contract and Article 1174 of the Civil Code, a prior conviction of the perpetrators is necessary.
• He argued that requiring a final criminal conviction would prevent potential abuses wherein consignees and custodians might benefit by colluding with others to be absolved of their civil liability.

Final Judicial Determination

• The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s contention.
• It ruled that the exemption from liability under Article 1174 does not hinge on a prior criminal conviction.
• Instead, it is sufficient to prove, by preponderant evidence, that the unforeseen and unpreventable event (the robbery) occurred without any concurrent negligence on the debtor’s part.
• The case was resolved by dismissing the petition with costs charged against the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether a prior criminal conviction for robbery is a necessary precondition for a consignee in a consignment contract to be exempt from liability for the loss of the consigned article.

• The petitioner argued that invoking Article 1174 of the Civil Code to establish the occurrence of a fortuitous event (robbery) requires the perpetrators to be conclusively convicted.

Whether the establishment of the occurrence of robbery in a civil case should be required to meet the higher standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) typically demanded in criminal proceedings.

• The issue centered on whether the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove that the robbery occurred without necessitating a final criminal judgment.

The effect of the alleged negligence of the consignee, Maria G. Abad, in terms of whether her conduct (returning home alone at night with expensive jewelry) might negate the exemption from liability even if robbery occurred.

• The conflicting assessments of negligence in the trial court versus the appellate court were also in question.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)