G.R. NO. 159617
SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC., vs. JORGE et. al.
August 8, 2007
Doctrines:
The discretion to decide a case one way or another is broad enough to justify the adoption of the arguments put forth by one of the parties, as long as these are legally tenable and supported by law and the facts on records.
The rule is that the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced when made as a shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate issues.
The theory of corporate entity was not meant to promote unfair objectives or otherwise to shield them.
Thus, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof, admits of two exceptions, to wit: (1) when it is shown that such admission was made through palpable mistake, and (2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. x x x if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party, but cites the admission "out of context," then the one making the "admission" may show that he made no "such" admission, or that his admission was taken out of context.
Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid.
And, in order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss; When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's participation -- whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act -- the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.
Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners; Just like in Co, petitioners merely presented the police report of the Parañaque Police Station on the robbery committed based on the report of petitioners' employees which is not sufficient to establish robbery.
Article 2123 of the Civil Code provides that with regard to pawnshops and other establishments which are engaged in making loans secured by pledges, the special laws and regulations concerning them shall be observed, and subsidiarily, the provisions on pledge, mortgage and antichresis.
We expounded in Cruz v. Gangan30 that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Obviously, the Central Bank considered it not feasible to require insurance of pawned articles against burglary.
The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform.
Rationale:
Carnapping, is it forfuitous? For example, robbery or carnapping per se is not a fortuitous event. Merely presenting the police report on the crime is not suffi cient to establish it happened nor prove that the obligor was not at fault. The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it.
Facts:
Jorge (respondent Lulu) pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. (Pawnshop corporation) to secure a loan in the total amount of P59,500.00.
On one date, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. The incident was entered in the police blotter.
Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident in the pawnshop.
Respondent Lulu then wrote a letter to petitioner Sicam expressing disbelief stating that when the robbery happened, all jewelry pawned were deposited with Far East Bank near the pawnshop since it had been the practice that before they could withdraw, advance notice must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw the jewelry from the bank.
Lulu then requested Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal but petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry.
Because of the failure of Sicam to secure the pawned jewelry, Lulu joined by her husband, Cesar Jorge, filed a complaint against petitioner Sicam with the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking indemnification for the loss of pawned jewelry and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing respondents’ complaint.
The RTC ruled that petitioner corporation could not be held liable for the loss of the pawned jewelry since it had not been rebutted by respondents that the loss of the pledged pieces of jewelry in the possession of the corporation was occasioned by armed robbery; that robbery is a fortuitous event which exempts the victim from liability for the loss, citing the case of Austria v. Court of Appeals; and that the parties’ transaction was that of a pledgor and pledgee and under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, the pawnshop as a pledgee is not responsible for those events which could not be foreseen.
Respondents appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
In a Decision, the CA reversed the RTC’s decision and held that:
"the corresponding diligence required of a pawnshop is that it should take steps to secure and protect the pledged items and should take steps to insure itself against the loss of articles which are entrusted to its custody as it derives earnings from the pawnshop trade which petitioners failed to do; that Austria is not applicable to this case since the robbery incident happened in 1961 when the criminality had not as yet reached the levels attained in the present day; that they are at least guilty of contributory negligence and should be held liable for the loss of jewelries; and that robberies and hold-ups are foreseeable risks in that those engaged in the pawnshop business are expected to foresee. "
A Motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied.
Thus the present petition to Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Sicam and pawnshop are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession. - YES
Held:
YES. They are liable.
Petitioners insist that they are not liable since robbery is a fortuitous event and they are not negligent at all.
Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners. In Co v. Court of Appeals, the Court held:
"It is not a defense for a repair shop of motor vehicles to escape liability simply because the damage or loss of a thing lawfully placed in its possession was due to carnapping. Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortuitous event. The fact that a thing was unlawfully and forcefully taken from another's rightful possession, as in cases of carnapping, does not automatically give rise to a fortuitous event. To be considered as such, carnapping entails more than the mere forceful taking of another's property. It must be proved and established that the event was an act of God or was done solely by third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleged to be negligent has any participation. In accordance with the Rules of Evidence, the burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it — which in this case is the private respondent. However, other than the police report of the alleged carnapping incident, no other evidence was presented by private respondent to the effect that the incident was not due to its fault. A police report of an alleged crime, to which only private respondent is privy, does not suffice to establish the carnapping. Neither does it prove that there was no fault on the part of private respondent notwithstanding the parties' agreement at the pre-trial that the car was carnapped. Carnapping does not foreclose the possibility of fault or negligence on the part of private respondent."