RP vs Luzon corp The present case comes by direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila

(Case No. 44572) adjudging the defendant-appellant, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, liable in damages to the plaintiff-appellee Republic of the Philippines. In the early afternoon of August 17, 1960, barge L-1892, owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation was being towed down the Pasig river by tugboats "Bangus" and "Barbero"1 also belonging to the same corporation, when the barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan bailey bridge, smashing the posts and causing the bridge to list. The river, at the time, was swollen and the current swift, on account of the heavy downpour of Manila and the surrounding provinces on August 15 and 16, 1960. Sued by the Republic of the Philippines for actual and consequential damage caused by its employees, amounting to P200,000 (Civil Case No. 44562, CFI of Manila), defendant Luzon Stevedoring Corporation disclaimed liability therefor, on the grounds that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees; that the damages to the bridge were caused by force majeure; that plaintiff has no capacity to sue; and that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction to navigation. After due trial, the court rendered judgment on June 11, 1963, holding the defendant liable for the damage caused by its employees and ordering it to pay to plaintiff the actual cost of the repair of the Nagtahan bailey bridge which amounted to P192,561.72, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint. Defendant appealed directly to this Court assigning the following errors allegedly committed by the court a quo, to wit: I The lower court erred in not holding that the herein defendant-appellant had exercised the diligence required of it in the selection and supervision of its personnel to prevent damage or injury to others.1awphl.nt II The lower court erred in not holding that the ramming of the Nagtahan bailey bridge by barge L-1892 was caused by force majeure. III The lower court erred in not holding that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction, if not a menace, to navigation in the Pasig river. IV The lower court erred in not blaming the damage sustained by the Nagtahan bailey bridge to the improper placement of the dolphins. V The lower court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to adduce further evidence in chief after it has rested its case. VI The lower court erred in finding the plaintiff entitled to the amount of P192,561.72 for damages which is clearly exorbitant and without any factual basis. However, it must be recalled that the established rule in this jurisdiction is that when a party appeals directly to the Supreme Court, and submits his case there for

decision, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any finding of fact made by the trial Court. The only questions that may be raised are those of law (Savellano vs. Diaz, L-17441, July 31, 1963; Aballe vs. Santiago, L-16307, April 30, 1963; G.S.I.S. vs. Cloribel, L-22236, June 22, 1965). A converso, a party who resorts to the Court of Appeals, and submits his case for decision there, is barred from contending later that his claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court. The reason is that a contrary rule would encourage the undesirable practice of appellants' submitting their cases for decision to either court in expectation of favorable judgment, but with intent of attacking its jurisdiction should the decision be unfavorable (Tyson Tan, et al. vs. Filipinas Compaia de Seguros) et al., L-10096, Res. on Motion to Reconsider, March 23, 1966). Consequently, we are limited in this appeal to the issues of law raised in the appellant's brief. Taking the aforesaid rules into account, it can be seen that the only reviewable issues in this appeal are reduced to two: 1) Whether or not the collision of appellant's barge with the supports or piers of the Nagtahan bridge was in law caused by fortuitous event or force majeure, and 2) Whether or not it was error for the Court to have permitted the plaintiff-appellee to introduce additional evidence of damages after said party had rested its case. As to the first question, considering that the Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate openings for the passage of water craft, including barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge, exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a presumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In Anglo American Jurisprudence, the inference arises by what is known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule (Scott vs. London Docks Co., 2 H & C 596; San Juan Light & Transit Co. vs. Requena, 224 U.S. 89, 56 L. Ed., 680; Whitwell vs. Wolf, 127 Minn. 529, 149 N.W. 299; Bryne vs. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 269 Mass. 130; 168 N.E. 540; Gribsby vs. Smith, 146 S.W. 2d 719). The appellant strongly stresses the precautions taken by it on the day in question: that it assigned two of its most powerful tugboats to tow down river its barge L-1892; that it assigned to the task the more competent and experienced among its patrons, had the towlines, engines and equipment double-checked and inspected; that it instructed its patrons to take extra precautions; and concludes that it had done all it was called to do, and that the accident, therefore, should be held due to force majeure or fortuitous event. These very precautions, however, completely destroy the appellant's defense. For caso fortuito or force majeure (which in law are identical in so far as they exempt an obligor from liability)2 by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable, "events that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable" (Art. 1174, Civ. Code of the Philippines). 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. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same: "un hecho no constituye caso fortuito por la sola circunstancia de que su existencia haga mas dificil o mas onerosa la accion diligente del presento ofensor" (Peirano Facio, Responsibilidad Extracontractual, p. 465; Mazeaud Trait de la Responsibilite Civil, Vol. 2, sec. 1569). The

very measures adopted by appellant prove that the possibility of danger was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen, and was not caso fortuito. Otherwise stated, the appellant, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, knowing and appreciating the perils posed by the swollen stream and its swift current, voluntarily entered into a situation involving obvious danger; it therefore assured the risk, and can not shed responsibility merely because the precautions it adopted turned out to be insufficient. Hence, the lower Court committed no error in holding it negligent in not suspending operations and in holding it liable for the damages caused. It avails the appellant naught to argue that the dolphins, like the bridge, were improperly located. Even if true, these circumstances would merely emphasize the need of even higher degree of care on appellant's part in the situation involved in the present case. The appellant, whose barges and tugs travel up and down the river everyday, could not safely ignore the danger posed by these allegedly improper constructions that had been erected, and in place, for years. On the second point: appellant charges the lower court with having abused its discretion in the admission of plaintiff's additional evidence after the latter had rested its case. There is an insinuation that the delay was deliberate to enable the manipulation of evidence to prejudice defendant-appellant. We find no merit in the contention. Whether or not further evidence will be allowed after a party offering the evidence has rested his case, lies within the sound discretion of the trial Judge, and this discretion will not be reviewed except in clear case of abuse.3 In the present case, no abuse of that discretion is shown. What was allowed to be introduced, after plaintiff had rested its evidence in chief, were vouchers and papers to support an item of P1,558.00 allegedly spent for the reinforcement of the panel of the bailey bridge, and which item already appeared in Exhibit GG. Appellant, in fact, has no reason to charge the trial court of being unfair, because it was also able to secure, upon written motion, a similar order dated November 24, 1962, allowing reception of additional evidence for the said defendant-appellant.4 WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision of the lower Court appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. Costs against the defendant-appellant. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO DE LA PEA, administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la Pea, defendant-appellant.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal rate from the beginning of the action. It is established in this case that the plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital and that father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Pea.

In the year 1898 the books Father De la Pea, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee the sum of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner, and while thus detained made an order on said bank in favor of the United States Army officer under whose charge he then was for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father De la Pea and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government. While there is considerable dispute in the case over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States. That branch of the law known in England and America as the law of trusts had no exact counterpart in the Roman law and has none under the Spanish law. In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Pea's liability is determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.) Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides, following the principle of the Roman law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.) By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Pea did not thereby assume an obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards. We do not enter into a discussion for the purpose of determining whether he acted more or less negligently by depositing the money in the bank than he would if he had left it in his home; or whether he was more or less negligent by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account as trustee. We regard such discussion as substantially fruitless, inasmuch as the precise question is not one of negligence. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is

culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other. The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited by Father De la Pea in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Pea was not responsible for its loss. The judgment is therefore reversed, and it is decreed that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint GUILLERMO AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), PACIFICO ABAD and MARIA G. ABAD, respondents.

Guillermo Austria petitions for the review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal (in CA-G.R. No. 33572-R), on the sole issue of whether in a contract of agency (consignment of goods for sale) it is necessary that there be prior conviction for robbery before the loss of the article shall exempt the consignee from liability for such loss. In a receipt dated 30 January 1961, Maria G. Abad acknowledged having received from Guillermo Austria one (1) pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00, to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on demand. On 1 February 1961, however, while walking home to her residence in Mandaluyong, Rizal, Abad was said to have been accosted by two men, one of whom hit her on the face, while the other snatched her purse containing jewelry and cash, and ran away. Among the pieces of jewelry allegedly taken by the robbers was the consigned pendant. The incident became the subject of a criminal case filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against certain persons (Criminal Case No. 10649, People vs. Rene Garcia, et al.). As Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value notwithstanding demands, Austria brought in the Court of First Instance of Manila an action against her and her husband for recovery of the pendant or of its value, and damages. Answering the allegations of the complaint, defendants spouses set up the defense that the alleged robbery had extinguished their obligation. After due hearing, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and ordered defendants spouses, jointly and severally, to pay to the former the sum of P4,500.00, with legal interest thereon, plus the amount of P450.00 as reasonable attorneys' fees, and the costs. It was held that defendants failed to prove the fact of robbery, or, if indeed it was committed, that defendant Maria Abad was guilty of negligence when she went home without any companion, although it was already getting dark and she was carrying a large amount of cash and valuables on the day in question, and such negligence did not free her from liability for damages for the loss of the jewelry. Not satisfied with his decision, the defendants went to the Court of Appeals, and there secured a reversal of the judgment. The appellate court overruling the finding of the trial court on the lack of credibility of the two defense witnesses who testified on the occurrence of the robbery, and holding that the facts of robbery and

defendant Maria Abad's possesion of the pendant on that unfortunate day have been duly published, declared respondents not responsible for the loss of the jewelry on account of a fortuitous event, and relieved them from liability for damages to the owner. Plaintiff thereupon instituted the present proceeding. It is now contended by herein petitioner that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was robbery in the case, although nobody has been found guilty of the supposed crime. It is petitioner's theory that for robbery to fall under the category of a fortuitous event and relieve the obligor from his obligation under a contract, pursuant to Article 1174 of the new Civil Code, there ought to be prior finding on the guilt of the persons responsible therefor. In short, that the occurrence of the robbery should be proved by a final judgment of conviction in the criminal case. To adopt a different view, petitioner argues, would be to encourage persons accountable for goods or properties received in trust or consignment to connive with others, who would be willing to be accused in court for the robbery, in order to be absolved from civil liability for the loss or disappearance of the entrusted articles. We find no merit in the contention of petitioner. It is recognized in this jurisdiction that to constitute a caso fortuito that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary that (1) the event must be independent of the human will (or rather, of the debtor's or obligor's); (2) the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner; and that (3) the obligor must be free of participation in or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. 1 A fortuitous event, therefore, can be produced by nature, e.g., earthquakes, storms, floods, etc., or by the act of man, such as war, attack by bandits, robbery, 2 etc., provided that the event has all the characteristics enumerated above. It is not here disputed that if respondent Maria Abad were indeed the victim of robbery, and if it were really true that the pendant, which she was obliged either to sell on commission or to return to petitioner, were taken during the robbery, then the occurrence of that fortuitous event would have extinguished her liability. The point at issue in this proceeding is how the fact of robbery is to be established in order that a person may avail of the exempting provision of Article 1174 of the new Civil Code, which reads as follows: ART. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. It may be noted the reform that the emphasis of the provision is on the events, not on the agents or factors responsible for them. To avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not necessary that the persons responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished; it would only be sufficient to established that the enforceable event, the robbery in this case did take place without any concurrent fault on the debtor's part, and this can be done by preponderant evidence. To require in the present action for recovery the prior conviction of the culprits in the criminal case, in order to establish the robbery as a fact, would be to demand proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove a fact in a civil case. It is undeniable that in order to completely exonerate the debtor for reason of a fortutious event, such debtor must, in addition to the cams itself, be free of any

concurrent or contributory fault or negligence. 3 This is apparent from Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, providing that: ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. It is clear that under the circumstances prevailing at present in the City of Manila and its suburbs, with their high incidence of crimes against persons and property that renders travel after nightfall a matter to be sedulously avoided without suitable precaution and protection, the conduct of respondent Maria G. Abad, in returning alone to her house in the evening, carrying jewelry of considerable value would be negligent per se and would not exempt her from responsibility in the case of a robbery. We are not persuaded, however, that the same rule should obtain ten years previously, in 1961, when the robbery in question did take place, for at that time criminality had not by far reached the levels attained in the present day. There is likewise no merit in petitioner's argument that to allow the fact of robbery to be recognized in the civil case before conviction is secured in the criminal action, would prejudice the latter case, or would result in inconsistency should the accused obtain an acquittal or should the criminal case be dismissed. It must be realized that a court finding that a robbery has happened would not necessarily mean that those accused in the criminal action should be found guilty of the crime; nor would a ruling that those actually accused did not commit the robbery be inconsistent with a finding that a robbery did take place. The evidence to establish these facts would not necessarily be the same. WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision of the Court of Appeals under review, the petition in this case is hereby dismissed with costs against the petitioner.