Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable In this connection, Article 1173 of the Civil Code further provides:
or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed but it must be omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions
of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
To constitute a fortuitous event, the following elements must concur:
(a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
or of the failure of the debtor to comply with obligations observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father
must be independent of human will; of a family shall be required.
(b) it must be impossible to foresee the event that
constitutes the caso fortuito or, if it can be foreseen, it must We expounded in Cruz v. Gangan that negligence is the omission to do
be impossible to avoid; something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
(c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or
the debtor to fulfill obligations in a normal manner; and, the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would
(d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the not do. It is want of care required by the circumstances.
aggravation of the injury or loss.
A review of the records clearly shows that petitioners failed to exercise
The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would
on him who invokes it. And, in order for a fortuitous event to exempt have used in the same situation. Petitioners were guilty of negligence
one from liability, it is necessary that one has committed no negligence in the operation of their pawnshop business. Sicam’s testimony
or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss. revealed that there were no security measures adopted by petitioners
in the operation of the pawnshop. Evidently, no sufficient precaution
Sicam had testified that there was a security guard in their pawnshop and vigilance were adopted by petitioners to protect the pawnshop
at the time of the robbery. He likewise testified that when he started from unlawful intrusion. There was no clear showing that there was any
the pawnshop business in 1983, he thought of opening a vault with the security guard at all. Or if there was one, that he had sufficient training
nearby bank for the purpose of safekeeping the valuables but was in securing a pawnshop. Further, there is no showing that the alleged
discouraged by the Central Bank since pawned articles should only be security guard exercised all that was necessary to prevent any
stored in a vault inside the pawnshop. The very measures which untoward incident or to ensure that no suspicious individuals were
petitioners had allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of allowed to enter the premises. In fact, it is even doubtful that there was
robbery was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen and a security guard, since it is quite impossible that he would not have
SPOUSES PACIS VS. MORALES Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
G.R. No. 169467 there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
February 25, 2010 Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the
FACTS: petitioners filed with the trial court a civil case for damages provisions of this Chapter.
against respondent Morales.
Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Pacis, a 17-year old student who
died in a shooting incident inside the Top Gun Firearms and This case involves the accidental discharge of a firearm inside a gun
Ammunitions Store in Baguio City. Morales is the owner of the gun store. Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the “Policy on Firearms and
store. Ammunition Dealership/Repair,” a person who is in the business of
purchasing and selling of firearms and ammunition must maintain
basic security and safety requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his
On the fateful day, Alfred was in the gun store, with Matibag and License to Operate Dealership will be suspended or canceled.
Herbolario as sales agents and caretakers of the store while owner
Morales was in Manila. The gun which killed Alfred is a gun owned by a
store customer which was left with Morales for repairs, which he placed Indeed, a higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his
inside a drawer. Since Morales would be going to Manila, he left the possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely
keys to the store with the caretakers. It appears that the caretakers dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances.
took the gun from the drawer and placed it on top of a table. Attracted Such person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities
by the sight of the gun, the young Alfred got hold of the same. has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury
Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun. The latter followed and being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business which
Clearly, respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence
ART. 1089 Obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasi-
required of a good father of a family, much less the degree of care
contracts, and illicit acts and omissions or by those in which any kind of
required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons, as would
fault or negligence occurs.
exempt him from liability in this case.
ART. 1902 A person who by an act or omission causes damage to
another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the
Taylor V. Manila Electric Railroad And Light Co.(1910)
damage so done.
G.R. No. L-4977 March 22, 1910
Lessons Applicable:
ART. 1903 The obligation imposed by the preceding article is
Elements of quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)
demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for
Good Father of a Family (Torts and Damages)
those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.
The father, and on his death or incapacity the mother, is liable for the
FACTS:
damages caused by the minors who live with them.
September 30, 1905 Sunday afternoon: David Taylor, 15 years of
xxx xxx xxx
age, the son of a mechanical engineer, more mature than the
Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable
average boy of his age, and having considerable aptitude and
for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
training in mechanics with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about
in which the latter may be employed or on account of their duties.
12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for
xxx xxx xxx
the purpose of visiting Murphy, an employee of the defendant,
The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons
who and promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature
mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a
engine
good father of a family to avoid the damage.
After leaving the power house where they had asked for Mr.
Murphy, they walked across the open space in the neighborhood
ART. 1908 The owners shall also be liable for the damage caused —
of the place where the company dumped in the cinders and ashes
1 By the explosion of machines which may not have been cared for
from its furnaces
with due diligence, and for kindling of explosive substances which may
they found some twenty or thirty brass fulminating caps scattered not have been placed in a safe and proper place.
on the ground
These caps are approximately of the size and appearance of small in order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by
pistol cartridges and each has attached to it 2 long thin wires by
competent evidence:
means of which it may be discharged by the use of electricity
1. Damages to the plaintiff
They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of 2. Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally,
dynamite, and have in themselves a considerable explosive power
or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
the boys picked up all they could find, hung them on stick, of 3. The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and
which each took end, and carried them home
the damage.
After crossing the footbridge, they met Jessie Adrian, less than 9 while we hold that the entry upon the property without express
years old, and they went to Manuel's home
invitation or permission would not have relieved Manila Electric
The boys then made a series of experiments with the caps from responsibility for injuries incurred, without other fault on his
trust the ends of the wires into an electric light socket - no result part, if such injury were attributable to his negligence, the
Zhieneth was just a foot away from her mother, and the counter was
Issues and Holding
just four meters away from Criselda (contrary to statements that
WON Zhieneth’s death was accidental or attributable to negligence.
Zhieneth was loitering at that time).
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEGLIGENCE
Picart v. Smith lays down the test to determine WON negligence exists: ISSUE: WON both Soriano and Aquino can be held liable for damages.
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would HELD:
have used in the same situation? If not, he is guilty of negligence.
As held in Amadora vs CA, “it is only the teacher and not the head of
SC found that Zhieneth performed no act that facilitated her death. an academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by
Basis is her statement to the doctor as related by former employee their students”. Where the school is academic rather than technical or
Gonzales. It was made part of the res gestae since she made the vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the
statement immediately subsequent to the startling occurrence. It is student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, this is the
axiomatic that matters relating to declarations of pain or suffering and general rule. However, in casea of establishments of arts and trades, it
statements made to a physician are generally considered declarations is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an
and admissions. Also, the court considered the fact that Zhieneth was exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall
of a tender age (and in so much pain!), so it would be unthinkable that be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is
she would lie. technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be