When lives and properties are destroyed, those who are responsible will have to answer or be held liable. There are instances however, where even loss or damages are sustained no one will be held answerable. One such instances is when the cause for such damage is a fortuitous event. Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides that no person shall be responsible for a fortuitous event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable.
Real vs. Belo
Real and Belo are operators of stalls at the Food Center of the Philippine Womens University (PWU). On 26 January 1996, a fire broke out at said Center and gutted the stall of Real and Belo. After investigation, it was revealed that the fire started at the stall of Real. Fumes from the LPG used by Real’s stall leaked which was the one that was ignited and caused the fire. Belo demanded from Real payment for the damages caused by the fire but the same was denied. Belo then filed a case before the Metropolitan Trial Court which found Real to be liable for the damages sustained by Belo by reason of the fire that broke out from Real’s stall. In the decision of the MTC Real was ordered to pay Php. 50,000.00 for temperate or moderate damages and Php. 25,000.00 for attorney’s fees. Real appealed the decision claiming that he cannot be held liable since the cause of the damage was a fortuitous event. The RTC sustained the MTC decision and even increased the temperate damage to Php. 80,000.00. Real filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals but was dismissed on technical grounds such as the non-submission of certified copies of certain documents. Real then brought the matter to the Supreme Court.
Not Fortuitous
The Supreme Court held that the technical error committed by Real which was the basis of the CA for the dismissal of the case was already cured when he submitted the certified true copies of the documents when he filed a motion for reconsideration. To avoid further delay, the SC decided to rule on the controversy. The SC said that in order for an event to be considered fortuitous the following must be present: “(a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must be independent of human will; (b) 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; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.” (G.R. NO. 146224,26 January 2007) These conditions are not present in the case. The investigation showed that the cause of the fire was the negligence of the employees of Real to adopt certain measures to prevent the fire. Real cannot then also avoid liability by claiming that it was his employee’s fault. The SC added: “To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.” Real was not able to present such proof. The SC however, overruled the increase of temperate damage from Php. 50,000.00 to Php. 80,000.00 because it improper for the RTC to do the same because Belo did not appeal the case.