Roberto Juntilla V.

Clemente Fontanar

G.R. No. L-45637 May 31, 1985

Lessons Applicable: Fortuitous Event (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
 Jeepney was driven by Berfol Camoro from Danao City to Cebu City. It was Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned by
defendant Fernando Banzon.
 When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire exploded causing the vehicle to turn turtle. Roberto Juntilla was
sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the vehicle.
 Upon landing on the ground, he momentarily lost consciousness. When he came to his senses, he found that he had a lacerated
wound on his right palm. He also injured his left arm, right thigh and on his back.
 Because of his shock and injuries, he went back to Danao City but on the way, he discovered that his "Omega" wrist watch
worth P 852.70 was lost. Upon his arrival in Danao City, he immediately entered the Danao City Hospital to attend to his
injuries, and also requested his father-in-law to proceed immediately to the place of the accident and look for the watch.
 Roberto Juntilla filed for breach of contract with damages
 Respondents: beyond the control since tire that exploded was newly bought and was only slightly used
 RTC: favored Roberto Juntilla
 CA: Reversed since accident was due to fortuitous event

ISSUE: W/N there is a fortuitous event

HELD: NO. CA reversed, RTC reinstated.

 passenger jeepney was running at a very fast speed before the accident
 at a regular and safe speed will not jump into a ditch when its right rear tire blows up
 passenger jeepney was overloaded
 3 passengers in the front seat
 14 passengers in the rear
 caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics:
 (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must
be independent of the human will.
 (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible
to avoid.
 (3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner.
 (4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
 In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not independent of the human will. The
accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or because of mechanical defects in the tire. Common carriers
should teach their drivers not to overload their vehicles, not to exceed safe and legal speed limits, and to know the correct
measures to take when a tire blows up thus insuring the safety of passengers at all times
 the source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering into the said contract, it binds itself to
carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person,
with a due regard for all the circumstances. The records show that this obligation was not met by the respondents
 respondents likewise argue that the petitioner cannot recover any amount for failure to prove such damages during the trial
 findings of facts of the City Court of Cebu

Ganzon V. CA (1988)

G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988

Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document
Laws Cited: Art. 1736,Art. 1734

FACTS: Gelacio > Ganzon (via Capt. Niza) > Lighter “Batman” (common carrier) (loaded half)
 November 28, 1956: Gelacio Tumambing (Gelacio) contracted the services of of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron
from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on board the light LCT “Batman”
 December 1, 1956: Gelacio delivered the scrap iron to Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading which was actually
begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain’s supervisor.
 When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula of Mariveles, Bataan arrived and demanded P5000
from Gelacio
 Upon resisting, the Mayor fired at Gelacio so he had to be taken to the hospital
 Loading of the scrap iron was resumed
 December 4, 1956: Acting Mayor Basilio Rub (Rub), accompanied by 3 policemen, ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew
to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked
 Later on Rub had taken custody of the scrap iron
 RTC: in favor of Gelacio and against Ganzon

ISSUE: W/N Ganzon should be held liable under the contract of carriage

HELD: YES. Petition is DENIED.

 Ganzon thru his employees, actually received the scraps is freely admitted.
 Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the
carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them.
 The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as
the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded.
 failed to show that the loss of the scraps was due to any of the following causes enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code,
namely:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;

(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

Hence, the petitioner is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.
 By reason of this presumption, the court is not even required to make an express finding of fault or negligence before it
could hold the petitioner answerable for the breach of the contract of carriage.
  exempted from any liability had he been able to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods in his custody, according to all the circumstances of the case, or that the loss was due to an unforeseen event or
to force majeure. As it was, there was hardly any attempt on the part of the petitioner to prove that he exercised such
extraordinary diligence.
 We cannot sustain the theory of caso fortuito - "order or act of competent public authority"(Art. 1174 of the Civil Code)
 no authority or power of the acting mayor to issue such an order was given in evidence. Neither has it been shown that the
cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles.
 Ganzon was not duty bound to obey the illegal order to dump into the sea the scrap iron.
 Moreover, there is absence of sufficient proof that the issuance of the same order was attended with such force or
intimidation as to completely overpower the will of the petitioner's employees. The mere difficulty in the fullfilment of the
obligation is not considered force majeure.

Sarkies Tours Phils. V. IAC

Facts:

On August 31, 1984, Fatima boarded petitioner’s bus from Manila to Legazpi. Her belongings consisting of 3 bags were kept at the
baggage compartment of the bus, but during the stopover in Daet, it was discovered that only one remained. The others might have
dropped along the way. Other passengers suggested having the route traced, but the driver ignored it. Fatima immediately told the
incident to her mother, who went to petitioner’s office in Legazpi and later in Manila. Petitioner offered P1,000 for each bag, but she
turned it down. Disapointed, she sought help from Philtranco bus drivers and radio stations. One of the bags was recovered. She was
told by petitioner that a team is looking for the lost luggage. After nine months of fruitless waiting, respondents filed a case to
recover the lost items, as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. The trial court ruled in
favor of respondents, which decision was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, deleting moral and exemplary
damages.

Issues:

(1) Whether petitioner is liable for the loss of the luggage

(2) Whether the damages sought should be recovered

Held:

(1) The cause of the loss in the case at bar was petitioner's negligence in not ensuring that the doors of the baggage compartment of
its bus were securely fastened. As a result of this lack of care, almost all of the luggage was lost, to the prejudice of the paying
passengers.

(2) There is no dispute that of the three pieces of luggage of Fatima, only one was recovered. Respondents had to shuttle between
Bicol and Manila in their efforts to be compensated for the loss. During the trial, Fatima and Marisol had to travel from the United
States just to be able to testify. Expenses were also incurred in reconstituting their lost documents. Under these circumstances, the
Court agrees with the Court of Appeals in awarding P30,000.00 for the lost items and P30,000.00 for the transportation expenses,
but disagrees with the deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages which, in view of the foregoing proven facts, with
negligence and bad faith on the fault of petitioner having been duly established, should be granted to respondents in the amount of
P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.