Dioquino v.

Laureano (1970)
Petitioners: PEDRO D. DIOQUINO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
Respondents: FEDERICO LAUREANO AIDA DE LAUREANO AND JUANITO LAUREANO,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Ponente: FERNANDO
Topic: Remedies for Breach
SUMMARY: (1-2 sentence summary of facts, issue, ratio and ruling)
FACTS:
- Atty. Pedro Dioquino went to the MVOs office in Masbate to register his car. There he met
Federico Laureano, patrol officer of the office, who was about to leave for the Provincial
Commanders office.
- Dioquino asked Laureano to introduce him to one of the clerks in the MVO office to facilitate
the registration of his car. Laureano graciously attended to it.
- Laureano then rode in Dioquinos car, with a driver on the wheel, going to the Provincial
Commanders office. (Note: Dioquino was not with them; Laureano was the sole passenger.)
- En route, the car was stoned by some boys and its windshield was broken. Laureano chased
the boys and was able to catch one of them. The boy was taken to Dioquino, and the father was
called, but no arrangements were made about the damage.
- Laureano refused to file any charges against the boy and his parents because he thought that
the stone-throwing was merely accidental and that it was due to force majeure. Thus, Dioquino
tried to convince Laureano to pay for the value of the windshield and he even came to the
extent of asking the wife to convince her husband to settle the matter amicably but Laureano
refused to make any settlement, but the latter refused, clinging to the same force majeure belief.
- Dioquino filed an action for damages in CFI against Laureano, his wife, and his father. CFI
ruled in favor of Dioquino, but only made Laureano pay not the wife and father.
ISSUES:

WON the incident was force majeure

o YES. The situation falls under A1174. What happened was clearly unforeseen. It
was a fortuitous event resulting in a loss that must be borne by the owner of the
car.
o Re: A1174: It is not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or
anticipated, but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere
difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.
o The express language of A1174, except for the addition of the nature of an
obligation requiring the assumption of risk, compels the conclusion that in the

absence of a legal provision or an express covenant, no one should be held to

account for fortuitous cases.
NOTES: