Mindex Resources Development v. Morillo

G.R. No. 138123 March 12, 2002

[Panganiban, J.]

Facts: Petitioner agrees verbally to lease a 6x6 cargo truck owned by the respondent Ephraim Morillo for use in MINDEX' mining operations. Unkown to Morillo the said truck was burned by unindentified persons while parked unattended after it suffered mechanical trouble. The truck was totally burned and only its engine  was partially burned. Upon learning of the incident Morillo offered to sell the truck to petitioner, but the latter refused. Instead it replaced the trucks tires and had it towed for repair and overhauling. Morillo sent a proposal to Mindex that for the payment of the cost of the truck in four (4) installments plus unpaid rentals but due to the tight finances, petitioner instead made a counteroffer to pay the rent, repair and overhaul the truck and return it to Morillo. With the parties unable to come to an agreement, Morillo pulled out the truck from Mindex' repair shop and had it repaired somewhere else.

The RTC found petitioner guilty for the destruction of the vehicle. This was affirmed by the CA and held petitioner responsible for its loss and destruction of the truck and was thus liable. CA modified the decision of the RTC by changing the 12% to 6% on the rentals and repair costs until the date of the finality of the decision trial court and 12 percent per annum thereafter, if the amounts adjudged would remain unpaid from such date of finality until the rentals and the repair costs were fully paid. CA also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees. Hence this petition. Petitioner claims that the burning of the truck was a fortuitous event, for which it should not be held liable pursuant to Article 1174. Moreover, the letter of respondent dated April 15, 1991, stating that the burning of the truck was an “unforeseen adversity,” was an admission that should exculpate the former from liability.

Issue: Whether or not the burning is a fortuitous event

No. 

Both the RTC and the CA found petitioner negligent and thus liable for the loss or destruction of the leased truck. True, both parties may have suffered from the burning of the truck but as found by both lower courts, the negligence of petitioner makes it responsible for the loss. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court. 

Contrary to its allegations, petitioner has not adequately shown that the RTC and the CA overlooked or disregarded significant facts and circumstances that, when considered, would alter the outcome of the disposition Article 1667 of the Civil Code holds lessees responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless they prove that it took place without their fault.

An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a 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 removes from the rules applicable to acts of God. Petitioner is also negligent. Negligence, as commonly understood, is that conduct that naturally or reasonably creates undue risks or harm to others.

Vasquez v. CA

138 SCRA 553


Facts: Petitioners lost their children in a shipwreck involving the vessel of private respondent when it sailed despite a typhoon.


Issue: 1) W/n it is a fortuitous event

2) W/n respondents are liable


HELD:

1) No. It is not a caso fortuito. The elements to consider in sustaining a case of caso fortuito are the ff: 1) the event must be independent of the human will, 2) the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner, 3) the obligor must be free of participation in, aggravation of, the injury to the creditor,

2) Petitioners are liable as it is not a caso fortutito. There is no caso fortuito when the ship captain proceeded en route despite a typhoon advice close to the area where the vessel will pass. Moreover, the Board of Marine’s inquiry conclusion that the ship captain was not negligent is not binding on the Court when said finding is not complete. The liability of the ship owner also extends to the value of vessel and the insurance proceeds thereon.

NAPOCOR v. C.A.

G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992
[Nocon, J.:]



Facts: NPC entered into a contract with private respondent, an engineering construction in constructing tunnel work. When a typhoon hit the project area causing water from dam to spill over, NPC opened the spillway gates of the dam only at the height of the typhoon. It caused the inundation of the towns neighboring the Angat Dam, particularly Norzagaray, Bulacan, at the height of the typhoon. It resulted to deaths and the loss and destruction of houses, farms, plants, working animals and other properties of the people residing nearby.


Issue: W/N petitioner is liable


HELD. Yes. NPC cannot escape liability because its negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage even though the typhoon was an act of God. It could have opened the gates at an earlier time, hence it has been negligent. But exemplary damages should not be awarded since there was no bad faith and gross negligence on the part of NPC.

La Mallorca et. al. v. De Jesus

G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966
[Makalintal, J.:]

Facts: The daughter of respondent died in a head-on collision between petitioner’s bus of which she was a passenger and a truck. The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the driver of the bus lost control of the wheel when its left front tire suddenly exploded.

Issue: W/n the tire blow-out is a fortuitous event

HELD: No. The accident was caused by a mechanical defect which could have been corrected if the bus has been subjected to a more thorough check up before it took the road. Therefore the owner of the vehicle is liable. Moral damages are recoverable by reason of the death of the passenger caused by the breach of contract of a common carrier as provided in Art 2206 of the New Civil Code.

Agcaoili v. GSIS

G.R. No. L-30056 August 30, 1988
[Narvasa, J.:]

Facts: Petitioner was awarded the house by GSIS on the condition that he should reside on it immediately. As the house is uninhabitable, petitioner vacated the area after 1 day and refused to pay further installments until respondent make it habitable. Respondent cancelled the award.

Issue: W/n the petitioner incurred delay in fulfilling his obligations

HELD: In reciprocal obligations, a party incurs delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. Respondent did not fulfill its obligation to deliver the house in a habitable state, therefore, it cannot invoke the petitioner’s suspension of payment as a cause to cancel the contract between them. There was a perfected contract of sale, it was then the duty of GSIS as seller to deliver the thing sold in a condition suitable for its enjoyment by the buyer and for the purpose contemplated. The house contemplated was one that could be occupied for purpose of residence in reasonable comfort and convenience.

Meralco Securities v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

G.R. No. L-46245 May 31, 1982

Aquino, J.:

Facts: Petitioner questions the decision of the respondent which held that petitioner’s pipeline is subject to realty tax. Pursuant to a concession, petitioner installed a pipeline system from Manila to Batangas. Meanwhile, the provincial assessor of Laguna treated the pipeline as real property. So, petitioner appealed the assessments to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Laguna. The board upheld the assessments and the decision became final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision by the appellant. Meralco Securities contends that the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and no judicial review of the Board's decision is provided for in the Real Property Tax Code. Hence, the petitioner’s recourse to file a petition for certiorari.

Held: It was held that certiorari was properly availed of in this case. It is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered to be elevated for review and correction in matters of law.

The rule is that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. The review is a part of the system of checks and balances which is a limitation on the separation of powers and which forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Judicial review of the decision of an official or administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial functions is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion or in case the administrative decision is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious.