Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Austria v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Princess Maun
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Guillermo Austria. The Court ruled that Maria Abad was not negligent when she was robbed while returning home alone at night in 1961, as criminality had not reached current levels back then. It also held that one can avail of exemption from liability due to a fortuitous event like robbery without needing to first find or punish the persons responsible. The nature of obligations under the Civil Code does not require assuming the risk of such unforeseen events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Austria v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Princess Maun
    13 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Guillermo Austria. The Court ruled that Maria Abad was not negligent when she was robbed while returning home alone at night in 1961, as criminality had not reached current levels back then. It also held that one can avail of exemption from liability due to a fortuitous event like robbery without needing to first find or punish the persons responsible. The nature of obligations under the Civil Code does not require assuming the risk of such unforeseen events.

    Original Description:

    Oblicon

    Original Title

    26. Austria v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Guillermo Austria. The Court ruled that Maria Abad was not negligent when she was robbed while returning home alone at night in 1961, as criminality had not reached current levels back then. It also held that one can avail of exemption from liability due to a fortuitous event like robbery without needing to first find or punish the persons responsible. The nature of obligations under the Civil Code does not require assuming the risk of such unforeseen events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Austria v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Princess Maun
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Guillermo Austria. The Court ruled that Maria Abad was not negligent when she was robbed while returning home alone at night in 1961, as criminality had not reached current levels back then. It also held that one can avail of exemption from liability due to a fortuitous event like robbery without needing to first find or punish the persons responsible. The nature of obligations under the Civil Code does not require assuming the risk of such unforeseen events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GUILLERMO AUSTRIA,

    petitioner
    vs.
    THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), PACIFICO ABAD and MARIA G. ABAD,
    respondents

    FACTS:
     Respondent, Maria Abad received one (1) pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00,
    to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on demand from the petitioner,
    Guillermo Austria.
     On February 1, 1961, while the respondent was walking home to her residence in
    Mandaluyong, Rizal, she was approached by two men. One of them hit her and the
    other snatched her purse containing the pendant she received from the petitioner.
     The incident became the subject of a criminal case filed in the Court of First Instance of
    Rizal.
     Due to respondent’s failure to return the jewelry or pay for its value despite repeated
    demands, Austria filed an action for recovery and damages against Maria and her
    husband in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
     The respondents argued that the alleged robbery extinguished their obligation due to it
    being a fortuitous event.
     However, petitioner contended that for robbery to fall under the category of a
    fortuitous event and relieve the obligor from his obligation under a contract, pursuant
    to Article 1174 of the new Civil Code, there ought to be prior finding on the guilt of the
    persons responsible therefor.
     Furthermore, they claimed that defendant Maria Abad was negligent in going home
    alone, despite the fact that it was already dark and she was carrying a large amount of
    cash and valuables on the day in question; hence, her negligence did not free her from
    liability.
     The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered respondents, jointly and
    severally, to pay to the former the sum of P4,500 with legal interest and attorney’s fee.
     The respondents went to the Court of Appeals, and there they secured a reversal of the
    judgment.
     Hence, this present petition for review of the decision rendered by the Court of
    Appeals.

    ISSUE:
     Whether or not one may avail the exemption for liability in fortuitous event even if the
    person responsible is not found or punished? (YES)
     Whether or not Maria Abad is negligent? (NO)

    RULING:
     To avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not necessary that the persons
    responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished; it would be sufficient to
    established that the enforceable event, the robbery in this case did take place without
    any concurrent fault on the debtor's part.

    ART. 1174
    Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when it is otherwise declared by
    stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk,
    no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or
    which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

     There is likewise no merit in petitioner's argument that there has to be a prior


    conviction for robbery before the respondent may be free from liability for the loss of
    the pedant.
     Additionally, the court held that Maria Abad was not negligent.
     It is true that under the current circumstances in the City of Manila and its suburbs, with
    their high incidence of crimes against persons and property, travel after nightfall alone
    should be avoided; hence, the conduct of respondent Maria Abad, in returning alone to
    her house in the evening, carrying jewelry of considerable value would be negligent per
    se and would not exempt her from responsibility in the case of a robbery.
     That rule, however, should not be applied ten years earlier, in 1961, when the robbery
    in question occurred, because criminality had not yet reached the levels attained today.
     WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

    You might also like