ARTICLE 1174 FORTUITOUS EVENTS 1.

. FRANKLIN AND CORAZON GACAL v PAL (1990) FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari decision of CFI dismissing complaint for damages for injuries suffered in hijacking incident. Spouses Gacal were passengers of PAL flight AC !"!! from #avao to $anila $%LF hijacked the airplane demanding for firearms& cash and trip A 'attle commenced 'etween the militar( and hijackers resulting to the death of ) hijackers and !* passengers. Cora+on Gacal suffered injuries. Spouses Gacal demanded actual& moral and e,emplar( damages. Spouses Gacal contend that PAL-s gross& wanton and ine,cusa'le negligence led to the unfortunate incident. .he( said that PAL personnel failed to frisk and use a metal detector. PAL averred that inspection and frisking were done solel( '( militar( personnel who assumed e,clusive jurisdiction in all airports CFI dismissed the complaints due to force majeure. ISSUE: /0% hijacking during martial law is a caso fortuito or force majeure which would e,empt an aircraft from pa(ment of damages1 RULING: 23S. SC #IS$ISS3# petition for lack of merit and AFF$I43# CFI 5nder the CC& common carriers are re6uired to e,ercise e,traordinar( diligence in their vigilance over goods and safet( of passengers according to all circumstances of each case. .he source of the legal lia'ilit( of a common carrier is the contract of carriage. .here is a 'reach of this o'ligation if it fails to e,ert e,traordinar( diligence according to all the circumstances It is the dut( of the common carrier to overcome the presumption of negligence. It must 'e shown that the carrier o'served the re6uired e,traordinar( diligence of a ver( cautious person as far as human care and foresight can provide or that the accident was caused '( a fortuitous event. Art !!78 ruled that no person shall 'e responsi'le for those events which could not 'e foreseen or which though foreseen were inevita'le. .he term is s(non(mous with caso fortuito. .he following elements should concur 9!: Cause of the 'reach of o'ligation must 'e independent of the human will 9;: event must 'e either unforeseea'le or unavoida'le 9): event must 'e such as to render it impossi'le for the de'tor to fulfill o'ligation in a normal manner 98: de'tor must 'e free from an( participation in or aggravation of injur( to the creditor Caso fortuito or force majeure& '( definition& are e,traordinar( events not foreseea'le or avoida'le& events that could not 'e foreseen& or which& though foreseen& are inevita'le. It is not enough that the event should not have 'een foreseen or anticipated. It must 'e one impossi'le to foresee or avoid. .he incident occurred during $artial Law where the militar( took over airport securit( including inspection and frisking. .his rendered it impossi'le for PAL to perform its o'ligations in a nominal manner and o'viousl( it cannot 'e faulted with negligence in the performance of dut( taken over '( the AFP. .he 8th element was also satisfied. 2. PAL v CA !" LEOVIGILDO PANTE#O (1997) FACTS: Appeal '( certiorari regarding complaint for damages. 0ct ;)& !<==& Leovigildo Pantejo& then Cit( Fiscal of Surigao Cit(& 'oarded a PAL plane from $anila to Ce'u Cit(& where he was supposed to take a connecting flight to Surigao Cit(. Connecting flight to Surigao was cancelled due to t(phoon 0sang. PAL initiall( gave out cash assistance of P)** for the e,pected ;" da( sta( of the stranded passengers. Pantejo refused the cash and re6uested to 'e 'illeted instead in a hotel instead at the e,pense of PAL. PAL refused. Pantejo was forced to share a room with 3ngineer Andoni #umlao at Sk( >iew ?otel& whom he promised to pa( 'ack in Surigao. 0ct ;@& !<==& Pantejo discovered that hotel e,penses of co" passengers Gon+ales and 4ocha were reim'ursed '( PAL. ?e told 0scar Aere+a& in charge of cancelled flights for PAL& that he was going to sue for discrimination. Aere+a offered to pa( P)** 'ut Pantejo declined to accept. ?e filed for damages afterwards. PAL contends that cash assistance or hotel accommodations for cancelled flights are a privilege to 'e e,tended at its own discretion. PAL cannot 'e lia'le for Pantejo after he refused cash. PAL also contends that the passengers were dul( informed that the( would 'e reim'ursed. 4.C and CA ruled in favor of Pantejo. ISSUE: /0% PAL should reim'urse Pantejo for hotel e,penses incurred '( reason of cancellation of connecting flight due to force majeure and if PAL acted in 'ad faith in discriminating against Pantejo1 RULING: 23S. SC AFFI4$3# decision of CA. A contract to transport passengers generates a relation attended with a pu'lic dut(. %eglect or malfeasance of the carrier-s emplo(ees naturall( could give ground for an action for damages. .he discriminator( act of PAL makes it lia'le for moral damages under Art ;! in relation to Art ;;!< of the Civil Code. Inattention and lack of care '( PAL for the interest of its passengers amount to 'ad faith and entitles moral damages. PAL acted in 'ad faith in refusing hotel accommodations for Pantejo or to reim'urse him despite co"passengers 'eing favored. PAL contends that cash assistance or hotel accommodations for cancelled flights are a privilege to 'e e,tended at its own discretion. PAL cannot 'e lia'le for Pantejo after he refused cash. Airline passengers ma( have no vested right to amenities for cancelled flights due to force majeure 'ut PAL is lia'le for damages for 'latantl( refusing to accord said amenities e6uall(. It is PAL-s standard compan( polic( to e,tend cash assistance or hotel accommodations in hotels with which it has e,isting tie"ups. 0scar Aere+a admitted that PAL had e,isting arrangements with hotels and reim'ursement to Gon+ales was pursuant to the polic(. .wo witnesses testified that the( were 'illeted at 4ajah ?otel when their flight from Ce'u to Surigao was also cancelled in %ov !<==. PAL-s emergenc( assistance should 'e represented as e, de'ito 9right: and not merel( e, grata 9pa(ment:. PAL failed to e,plain wh( others were reim'ursed. 0ther passengers onl( knew a'out it '( accident or mere word of mouth. P)** was onl( an afterthought after Pantejo said that he-ll sue.

$. AL%ERTA AND CRESENCIO &O%IDO v CA !" TU'%O& (1997) 4. SOUT(EASTERN COLLEGE INC v CA !" DI'AANO (199)) FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision regarding e,emption from lia'ilit( that a 'lown out tire is a fortuitous event. April ;B& !<==& Spouses .um'o( and their children 'oarded a 2o'ido Liner 'us from Surigao del Sur to #avao Cit(. Along Picop 4oad in Sta. $aria& Agusan del Sur& the newl( installed left front Good(ear tire of the 'us e,ploded. .he 'us fell into a ravine and struck a tree. .ito .um'o( died and man( others suffered injuries as a result. %ov ;!& !<==& Len( .um'o( and her children filed a complaint for 'reach of contract of carriage and damages against petitioners. .um'o( contends that the driver failed to e,ercise the diligence re6uired of carriers in transporting passengers safel( to their destination. Len( reported that she complained to the 'us driver that he was Crunning fastD and to slow down since the winding road was wet due to the rain 'ut the latter ignored her. 4espondent 'us owners contend that the accident was due to a fortuitous event. .he( said that the tire was newl( installed and was of good 6ualit( 'ecause of the 'rand. .he 'us was reportedl( onl( running @* to B* kph. 4.C decided in favor of 2o'ido. CA reversed 4.C decision. ISSUE: /0% the incident was a fortuitous event and the carrier e,ercised re6uired diligence to avoid the same1 RULING: %0. SC AFFI4$3# /I.? $0#IFICA.I0% the decision of CA. 2o'ido failed to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence& there'( making it lia'le for damages. Art !7@B provides that in case of death or injuries to passengers& common carriers are presumed to have 'een at fault or to have acted negligentl(& unless the( prove that the( o'served e,traordinar( diligence as prescri'ed in Art !7)) and !7@@. Art !7@@ provides that a common carrier is 'ound to carr( passengers safel( as far as human care and foresight can provide& using the most diligence of ver( cautious persons& with due regard for all circumstances. .he 8 characteristics of a fortuitous event are not complete. .here must 'e an entire e,clusion of human agenc( from the cause of injur( or loss. .he e,plosion of the new tire ma( not 'e considered a fortuitous event. .here are human factors involved in the situation. 4egardless of the condition and 'rand of the tire& it is not implied that it was free of manufacturing defects or was properl( mounted on the vehicle. An accident caused '( defects in the automo'ile or negligence of the driver is not a caso fortuito. .he common carrier must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the death or injur( resulting from an accident. 2o'ido failed to show evidence that the accident was due to adverse road conditions or that the driver took precautions to avoid accidents. 2o'ido failed to re'ut the testimon( that the driver was cautioned to slow down or that the road was winding and wet due to rain. 2o'ido should have shown that it undertook e,traordinar( diligence in the care of its carrier '( conducting dail( routinar( check"ups of the vehicles parts. .he new and good 6ualit( tire is not sufficient proof. FACTS: Petition for 4eview regarding pa(ment of damages. #imaano own a house Cit( and Southeastern College owns a 8" store( school 'uilding on the same College 4oad& Pasa( Cit(. 0ct !!& !<=<& .(phoon Saling hit $anila and 'lew off the 5"shaped roof of the school 'uilding which landed on the #imaano house. An ocular inspection was done and declared the school 'uilding a structural ha+ard. .he engineers said that the most likel( reason for dislodge is improper anchorage and 5"shape of the roof. .he damage to the #imaano house rendered it uninha'ita'le. #imaano filed a complaint for damages. Southeastern College contends that the school 'uilding was in tip" top condition and had withstood man( t(phoons and other calamities in the past. It was not negligent. .he happening was an act of God which should e,empt them from damages. #imaano contend that the fault( structure and negligence on the part of petitioner makes it lia'le for moral and e,emplar( damages. 4.C ruled in favor of #imaano. CA affirmed with modifications. ISSUE: /0% Southeastern College is lia'le for damage caused to others '( t(phoon Saling 'eing an act of God1 RULING: %0. SC G4A%.3# petition and 43>34S3# 4.C and CA decision .(phoon Saling was the pro,imate cause of the damage. Petitioner cannot 'e made to answer for a purel( fortuitous event. .here was no negligence or 'ad faith to warrant moral damages. .here is no 6uestion that a t(phoon or storm is a fortuitous event. It is a natural occurrence. It is a natural occurrence that is foreseen 'ut unavoida'le despite an( amount of foresight& diligence or care. Fortuitous events ma( 'e produced '( 9!: nature 9;: act of man. %egligence is conduct that naturall( creates undue risk to others. An ocular inspection is not alwa(s reflective of the real cause 'ehind. .he relationship of cause and effect must 'e clearl( shown .he 'urden of proving negligence or relationship of cause and effect lies on #imaano. %o investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of partial unroofing. .he( did not conclusivel( esta'lish that 'uilding construction or plans are flawed Petitioners o'tained 'oth 'uilding permit and certificate of occupanc(& which are prima facie evidence of proper construction. Annual maintenance inspection and repair of the school 'uilding were regularl( undertaken. #imaano did not contest testimon(. .he cit( 'uilding official.& admitted in open court that no complaints on the alleged defect has ever 'een lodged since !<78. Structure could not have withstood calamities for several (ears with defect. .(phoons are common occurrences in the Philippines. #imaano merel( su'mitted an estimated amount for repairs. .he( failed to adduce ade6uate proof of the pecuniar( loss incurred.

*. P(ILCO'SAT v GLO%E TELECO' (2004) FACTS: .wo Petitions for 4eview regarding a lease agreement 'etween Philcomsat and Glo'e .elecom. $an( (ears 'efore !<<!& Glo'e .elecom engaged in providing various communication facilities for 5S militar( 'ases in Clark Air ase& Pampanga and Su'ic %aval ase in Cu'i Point& Eam'ales. .he communication facilities were installed and configured for the e,clusive use of 5S #efense Communications Agenc( 95S#CA: $a( 7& !<<!& Philcomsat and Glo'e entered into an agreement where'( Philcomsat will esta'lish and operate an earth station within Cu'i Point for 5S#CA. In turn& Glo'e will pa( monthl( rentals for each leased circuit. .he contract was for B* months or @ (ears. oth parties knew at the time that the $ilitar( ases Agreement 'etween the 4P and 5S would e,pire in !<<!. Sept !B& !<<!& Senate passed 4esolution %o. !8!& which is the non"ratification of .reat( of Friendship& Cooperation and Securit(. #ec )!& !<<!& a %ote >er'ale notified the 5S Government that the 4P"5S $ilitar( ases Agreement terminates on #ec )!& !<<; so all 5S militar( forces in Su'ic should 'e withdrawn on said date. Aug B& !<<;& Glo'e notified Philcomsat its intention to discontinue the use of the earth station effective %ov =& !<<; in view of the withdrawal of 5S militar( personnel from Su'ic& invoking Section = of the Agreement 9#efault: Section = provides that neither part( shall 'e in default for failure to perform directl( or indirectl( from force majeure or fortuitous event. Aug !*& !<<;& Philcomsat replied in a letter that it e,pects Glo'e to pa( rentals for the remaining terms even after discontinued use. %ov ;8& !<<)& Philcomsat demanded pa(ment from Glo'e amounting to F8&<!*&!)B plus interest. Glo'e refused. Philcomsat contends that the termination of the 5S"4 Agreement is not a fortuitous event since it was foreseea'le and that Section = is ineffective for 'eing contrar( to Art !!78. Glo'e contends that the termination and withdrawal was a fortuitous event and prevent their further use of the earth station. 4.C ruled in favor of Philcomsat. CA ruled in favor of Glo'e. ISSUE: /0% termination of 5S"4P Agreement and withdrawal of all 5S militar( forces from Cu'i Point constitute a fortuitous event1 RULING: 23S. SC AFFI4$3# decision of CA. .he termination of 5S"4P Agreement& formal order from Cdr. /alter Corliss of the 5S%& A.. letter notification and withdrawal of troops are unforeseea'le or foreseea'le 'ut 'e(ond the control. It would 'e unjust to charge Glo'e rentals without Philcomsat performing its o'ligation of providing telecommunications service. 5nder Art !!78 these are fortuitous events that e,empt Glo'e from pa(ing further rentals after #ec )!& !<<;& when troops withdrew. 5nder Art !!@<& Philcomsat and Glo'e freel( agreed upon Section =& not 'eing contrar( to law and having force of law 'etween them.

.he elements of fortuitous events were esta'lished 9!: event is independent of human will 9;: occurrence makes it impossi'le for de'tor to fulfill o'ligation in a normal manner 9): de'tor is free of participation or aggravation of injur( to creditor. oth parties had no control over the non"renewal of the Agreement. 0nl( Senate has prerogative to ratif( the treat( which will e,tend the life of the contract. Glo'e e,empt from pa(ment of rentals after #ec )!& !<<;& after Corliss order and actual withdrawal of troops from Cu'i Point.

+. RO%ERTO SICA' v LULU #ORGE (2007) FACTS: Petition for review on Certiorari for indemnification and damages 0ct !<=7& Lulu Aorge pawned jewelr( with Agencia de 4.C. Sicam in Parana6ue& $etro $anila to secure a loan for P@<&@**. 0ct !<& !<=7& two armed men ro''ed the pawnshop and its vault. As a result& Sicam failed to return the Aewelr( to respondents. Aorge filed for indemnification and damages. Sicam contends that it cannot 'e lia'le for the loss since ro''er( is a fortuitous event and he is not personall( lia'le& not a real part("in" interest& since the pawnshop was incorporated in Apr ;*& !<=7. 4.C ruled in favor of Sicam. CA reversed the decision. ISSUE: /0% Sicam was negligent and should 'e lia'le for the loss1 RULING: 23S. SC AFFI4$3# decision of CA& e,cept for insurance aspect. Sicam failed to e,ercise the diligence re6uired in Civil Code. Art !!78 states that in a pledgor and pledgee transaction& the latter is not responsi'le for events which could not 'e foreseen. ?owever& it is not enough that the event is not foreseen or anticipated. It must 'e one impossi'le to foresee or avoid. .he mere difficult( to foresee the event is not impossi'ilit( to foresee it. .he 8 elements should 'e present and 'urden of proving loss due to fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it. A'sence of negligence is re6uired to e,empt from lia'ilit(. An act of God cannot 'e invoked to protect a person who failed to take steps to forestall the possi'le conse6uences of such a loss. /hen effect is partl( from a person-s participation& '( neglect or positive act& event is humani+ed and acts of God do not appl(. .he corresponding diligence re6uired of a pawnshop is that it should take steps to secure and protect the pledged items. .he ro''er( happened in !<=7 when crime rates were alread( high Intention to store pawned articles in a near'( 'ank showed that Sicam foresaw and anticipated ro''er(. Sicam merel( presented the police report 'ased on emplo(eesreport. Such report does not prove a'sence of fault. Art !!7* states that those guilt( of fraud are lia'le for damages. Art ;!;) provides that pawnshops should o'serve special laws. Art !!7) provides that negligence or fault of the o'ligor consists in omission of diligence re6uired '( the nature of o'ligation. /hen negligence shows 'ad faith& Art !!7! and ;;*! appl( wherein diligence of a good father is re6uired if law does not state. %o sufficient precaution or vigilance was adopted to protect the pawnshop from intrusion. %o clear showing of a securit( guard screening and the vault was kept open during operating hours. .he receipts issued after alleged incorporation were still in the name of Agencia de 4.C. Sicam which misled respondents that the pawnshop was solel( owned '( petitioner and not '( a corporation.

Gala,( was negligent in selection and supervision. It didn-t impose administrative sanction and allowed leave of a'sence which led to the disappearance of 4osete.

7. SALUDAGA v FAR EASTERN UNIVERSIT& (200)) FACTS: Petition for 4eview on Certiorari Aoseph Saludaga& a ;nd (ear law student at F35 was shot '( one of the securit( guards& Alejandro 4osete. 4osete said that the shooting was accidental. Saludaga filed a complaint for damages against F35 for 'reach of o'ligation to provide students with a safe and secure environment. F35 filed a .hird"Part( Complaint against Gala,(& the securit( agenc( and its president& $ariano Imperial to indemnif( F35 for whatever would 'e adjudged in favor of Saludaga. Gala,( filed a Fourth"Part( Complaint against AFP Gen. Insurance F35 contend that the( should not 'e lia'le for damages since the shooting incident is a fortuitous event. F35 contend that 4osete was not their emplo(ee 'ut Gala,(-s. 4.C ruled in favor of Saludaga. Gala,( and Imperial to indemnif( F35 solidaril(. CA reversed the decision. ISSUE: /0% F35 was lia'le for the shooting event1 RULING: 23S. SC 43>34S3# decision of CA. F35 is lia'le to Saludaga for damages due to negligence. Gala,( is lia'le to F35 for damages due to negligence. /hen Saludaga enrolled in F35& a contract was entered into 'etween them. F35 provides education and safe environment while Saludaga a'ides '( academic re6uirements and rules. F35 'reach the contract when harm 'efell the plaintiff when he was shot '( securit( guard who was supposed to maintain peace. In culpa contractual& mere proof of the e,istence of a contract and failure of compliance justif(& prima facie& corresponding right of relief. .he shooting incident is prima facie showing that F35 failed to compl( with o'ligation to provide a safe and secure environment F35 failed to discharge 'urden of proving that due diligence was e,ercised. .he( did not prove that the guards assigned met the re6uirements in the Securit( Service Agreement. .he( did not show that the( ascertained the 6ualifications '( e,amining the clearances& ;*! files and ps(chiatric test results. .otal reliance of F35 on Gala,( constitutes negligence. Force majeure under Art !!78 cannot 'e used as a defense since neglect or failure to act humani+es the whole occurrence. 5nder Art !!7*& F35 is lia'le for damages since it was negligent. 5nder Art ;!=*& Gala,( is lia'le since 4osete is its emplo(ee. Selection of the guards and due diligence of a good father is e,pected of Gala,( and not F35 who is not the emplo(er.