Case Digest (G.R. No. 218738)
Facts:
On July 18, 1990, Jimmy Co., doing business as Dragon Metal Manufacturing (hereafter “petitioner”), entrusted his 1988 Nissan pick-up (Plate No. PJK-666) to Broadway Motor Sales Corporation (hereafter “private respondent”), a firm engaged in the sale, distribution, and repair of motor vehicles, for a comprehensive service contract. The agreed jobs included bleeding the injection pump and nozzles, adjusting valve tappets, changing oil and filter, overhauling four-wheel brakes, lubricating accelerator linkages, replacing the aircon belt, and installing a new battery. Private respondent undertook to deliver the fully serviced vehicle on July 21, 1990. Petitioner paid PHP 1,397.00 in full and received a gate pass for release on that date, but the car could not be delivered due to a weak battery. Petitioner purchased a replacement battery and delivered it the same day, yet installation was deferred to July 24. On the afternoon of July 24, petitioner was informed that the vehicle hadCase Digest (G.R. No. 218738)
Facts:
- Engagement and Contract of Service
- On July 18, 1990, petitioner Jimmy Co. (doing business as Dragon Metal Manufacturing) entrusted his 1988 Nissan pick-up (Plate No. PJK-666) to Broadway Motor Sales Corporation for repair and parts supply.
- Agreed services and parts included:
- Bleed injection pump and all nozzles
- Adjust valve tappet
- Change oil and filter
- Open up and service four-wheel brakes; clean and adjust
- Lubricate accelerator linkages
- Replace air-conditioning belt
- Replace battery
- The respondent undertook to return the vehicle fully serviced by July 21, 1990.
- Payment, Delay, and Rescheduled Delivery
- Petitioner paid the full repair bill of ₱1,397.00 on July 21, 1990 and received a gate pass for vehicle release.
- Respondent failed to install a replacement battery due to weakness; petitioner purchased a new battery and delivered it the same day.
- Installation was not completed; delivery was rescheduled to July 24, 1990.
- Carnapping Incident and Initial Suit
- On the morning of July 24, 1990, the vehicle was reported carnapped during a road test by a respondent’s employee.
- No recovery of the vehicle or accessories ensued.
- Petitioner filed suit for damages, alleging respondent’s negligence.
- Pre-trial Stipulations
- Original cost of the pick-up: ₱332,500.00; accessories valued at ₱20,000.00.
- Loss occurred approximately two years and five months after purchase.
- Service fee of ₱1,397.00 was fully paid.
- Present fair market value of a new similar vehicle: ₱425,000.00.
- Sole issue: who should bear the loss and whether respondent was negligent.
- Proceedings Below
- Trial court found respondent guilty of delay and negligent custody; awarded petitioner the value of the vehicle (₱332,500.00) plus accessories (₱20,000.00), legal interest, and attorney’s fees.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding that:
- The trial court was limited to deciding negligence as defined at pre-trial and could not rule on delay.
- Carnapping was a fortuitous event excusing liability.
Issues:
- Can a repair shop be held liable for the loss of a customer’s vehicle under its custody?
- Does carnapping per se constitute a fortuitous event that absolves the repair shop from liability?
- Was the trial court barred from ruling on delay notwithstanding the pre-trial stipulations?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)