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.