ROBERTO JUNTILLA VS.

CLEMENTE FONTANAR
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.
1
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.
1

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.

1
1
2

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

ALBINO S. CO, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondents.G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993
Facts:
In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel and in payment of
his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated petitioner Albino Co
delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens'
Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3,
1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED
ACCOUNT."
A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the
salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in
Co's conviction of the crime charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of
sixty (60) days and to indemnify the salvage company in the sum of P361,528.00.
Co appealed to the Court of Appeals which later affirmed the decision of the lower
court. This is a petition for certiorari from the appellee under the grounds that a check issued
merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by Batasang Pambansa
Blg. 22 or the Anti - Bouncing Check Law. In Circular (No. 4), dated December 15, 1981, pertinently
provided as follows:
2.3.4. Where issuance of bouncing check is neither estafa nor violation of B.P. Blg.
22. Where the check is issued as part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment of an
obligation, whether pre-existing or not, the drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
However this was later reversed in administrative circular was subsequently issued on
August 8, 1984.
Issue:Whether or not Co is guilty of violating BP 22 at the time of issuance of his check?
Held:No. This was because at the time of the issuance of the check on September 1, 1983, some four
(4) years prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v. People on September 21, 1987, which the
RTC's conviction was relied on, the delivery of a "rubber" or "bouncing" check as guarantee for an
obligation was not considered a punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in a Circular of
the Ministry of Justice.
The new circular was delivered after almost one (1) year when Albino Co hand the
"bouncing" check to the complainant on September 1, 1983.
The Court merits this case under the maxims that judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines,"
according to Article 8 of the Civil Code. "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary
is provided," declares Article 4 of the same Code, a declaration that is echoed by Article 22 of the
Revised Penal Code: "Penal laws shall have, a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal.
Ratio: This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which, pursuant to familiar,
fundamental doctrine, must be resolved in favor of the accused. Everything considered, the Court sees
no compelling reason why the doctrine of mala prohibita should override the principle of
prospectivity, and its clear implications as herein above set out and discussed, negating criminal
liability.

Dispo:The assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals and of the Regional Trial Court are reversed and
set aside, and the criminal prosecution against the accused-petitioner is DISMISSED, with cost de
officio.