Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29640)
Factual Background
On January 30, 1961, Austria consigned to Maria Abad a diamond pendant valued at ₱4,500, to be sold on commission or returned on demand. On February 1, 1961, Abad was allegedly accosted by two assailants while walking home after dusk; one struck her, the other seized her purse, which contained the pendant and cash. No reliable proof of the burglars’ identities emerged, and the pendant was never recovered.
Procedural History
A criminal complaint against unnamed suspects was filed in the CFI of Rizal (Criminal Case No. 10649). Austria then sued the Abads in the CFI of Manila for the pendant’s value and damages. The trial court found that robbery was unproven or that Abad’s negligence contributed to the loss, and therefore held her liable for ₱4,500 plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that robbery had been established and constituted a fortuitous event that extinguished liability.
Legal Issue
Whether the occurrence of a robbery may be proven in a civil action by preponderance of evidence to invoke the fortuitous‐event exemption under Article 1174 of the Civil Code without requiring a prior criminal conviction of the perpetrators.
Applicable Law
Civil Code of the Philippines (1950):
– Article 1174 (no liability for unforeseeable, inevitable events absent stipulation)
– Article 1170 (liability for fraud, negligence, or delay)
Jurisprudence on casus fortuitus and human‐caused events such as robbery.
Court’s Analysis
- A fortuitous event may arise from human acts (e.g., robbery) if it is independent of the obligor’s will, makes performance impossible, and involves no concurrent fault by the obligor.
- The emphasis of Article 1174 is on the event, not on the punishment of its agents; proof by preponderance suffices in civil cases.
- Requiring a criminal conviction would impose a beyond‐reasonable‐doubt standard inappropriate for civil proceedings.
- Contributory negligence bars exemption: traveling alone at night with valuables in present‐day Manila would be negligent per se, b
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29640)
Facts of the Case
- On January 30, 1961, Guillermo Austria delivered to Maria G. Abad a diamond pendant valued at ₱4,500.00 under a consignment-for-sale or return-on-demand arrangement.
- Maria G. Abad acknowledged receipt of the pendant in a written receipt and agreed to sell it on commission or return it on demand.
- On February 1, 1961, while walking home in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Abad was allegedly accosted by two men; one struck her face, and the other snatched her purse containing the pendant and cash.
- A criminal case (No. 10649, People vs. Rene Garcia, et al.) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, but no conviction resulted before the civil action.
- Austria demanded return of the pendant or its value; upon refusal, he 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.
Procedural History
- Trial Court (CFI Manila):
• Held that defendants failed to prove the robbery.
• Alternatively, found Maria G. Abad negligent in traveling unescorted at dusk with valuables.
• Rendered judgment for plaintiff: ₱4,500.00 plus legal interest, ₱450.00 attorneys’ fees, and costs. - Court of Appeals (Second Division):
• Overruled trial court’s credibility findings.
• Found that the robbery and loss of the pendant were duly established.
• Held the loss to be a fortuitous event under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, exempting respondents from liability. - Supreme Court (present case): Review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether a prior criminal conviction for robbery is required before the loss of consigned goods qualifies as a fortuitous event that exempts the consignee from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code.
- What quantum and character of proof are necessary in a