Case Summary (G.R. No. 159617)
Key Dates
September–October 1987: Jewelry pledged for P59,500.00
October 19, 1987: Alleged robbery at pawnshop vault
September 28, 1988: Complaint filed in RTC (Civil Case No. 88-2035)
January 12, 1993: RTC Decision dismissing respondents’ complaint
March 31, 2003: CA Decision reversing RTC and awarding P272,000.00 plus fees
August 8, 2003: CA Resolution denying reconsideration
August 8, 2007: Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VIII, Section 8)
Civil Code provisions on fortuitous events (Article 1174), diligence of a good father of a family (Articles 2099, 1170, 1173), pledge (Article 2123)
Central Bank Circular No. 374 (later amended by Circular No. 764)
Rule 45, Rules of Court (Supreme Court review of appellate errors)
Factual Background
Respondent Lulu Jorge pawned jewelry items with petitioner pawnshop. On October 19, 1987, two armed men allegedly robbed the pawnshop vault, seizing cash and pledged jewelry. Petitioner Sicam notified respondents of the loss. Respondent Lulu disputed the robbery account, asserting that pledged jewelry was stored with Far East Bank under established practice. Petitioner failed to return pledged items upon respondents’ demand.
Procedural History
RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint, holding: (1) Sicam personally was not liable for corporate transactions; (2) robbery constituted a fortuitous event exempting the pawnshop from liability. Respondents appealed. The CA reversed, piercing the corporate veil to hold Sicam personally liable and finding concurrent negligence for failure to insure and secure the pledged items. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether Sicam should be held personally liable despite corporate incorporation.
- Whether the loss by robbery is a fortuitous event exempting petitioners from liability or whether petitioners were negligent in safeguarding the pledged jewelry.
Supreme Court Ruling and Rationale
- Piercing the Corporate Veil
– The CA properly pierced the corporate veil because petitioners continued issuing pawnshop receipts in Sicam’s name, thus misleading respondents to believe the business was his sole proprietorship.
– Judicial admissions in respondents’ Amended Complaint did not preclude rebuttal, as such admissions were taken out of context and made under mistake. - Fortuitous Event vs. Negligence
– Robbery is not per se a fortuitous event. Petitioners bore the burden to prove absence of negligence.
– Petitioners’ own testimony revealed foreseen risk (desire to deposit pledges in a bank vault)
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159617)
Facts
- In September to October 1987, respondent Lulu V. Jorge pawned assorted jewelry with Agencia de R.C. Sicam at BF Homes Parañaque to secure a P59,500.00 loan.
- On October 19, 1987, two armed men forced their way into the pawnshop vault, tied up employees, and stole cash and pawned jewelry.
- The robbery was recorded in the Parañaque Police Station blotter describing suspects fleeing in a Marson Toyota.
- Petitioner Sicam notified respondent Jorge of the loss by letter dated October 19, 1987.
- Respondent Jorge replied on November 2, 1987, asserting that her jewelry had been stored at Far East Bank and demanding return on November 6, which did not occur.
- On September 28, 1988, Lulu Jorge and her husband Cesar Jorge filed Civil Case No. 88-2035 in the RTC of Makati for indemnification, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against Roberto C. Sicam.
Procedural History
- Petitioner Sicam answered, claiming lack of personal interest and asserting the pawnshop was a corporation incorporated April 20, 1987.
- Respondents filed an Amended Complaint adding Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc. as a defendant.
- Sicam’s Motion to Dismiss as to him personally was denied on November 8, 1989.
- After trial, the RTC on January 12, 1993 dismissed respondents’ complaint and petitioners’ counterclaim, ruling Sicam not personally liable and holding the robbery a fortuitous event.
- Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on March 31, 2003 reversed and ordered petitioners to pay P272,000.00 plus attorney’s fees of P27,200.00.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on August 8, 2003.
- A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 was filed before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether Roberto C. Sicam can be held personally liable despite corporate incorporation of the pawnshop.
- Whether the CA correctly pierced the corporate veil to hold Sicam individually accountable.
- Whether the loss of pawned jewelry by armed robbery constitutes a fortuitous event exempting the corporate pawnshop from liability.
- Whether petitioners exercised the diligence required of a pledgee and are guilty of negligence.
- Whether petitioners were under a statutory duty to insure pawned articles against burglary at the time of the incident.