MANEJO DE SITUACIONES DE RIESGO POR PARTE DEL EMPLEADOR

On July 7, 1995, petitioner Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. (Megaworld) and respondent Mila S. Tanseco (Tanseco) entered into a Contract to Buy and Sell1 a 224 square-meter (more or less) condominium unit at a pre-selling project. The purchase price was P16,802,037.32, to be paid as follows: (1) 30% less the reservation fee of P100,000, or P4,940,611.19, by postdated check payable on July 14, 1995; (2) P9,241,120.50 through 30 equal monthly installments of

P308,037.35 from August 14, 1995 to January 14, 1998; and (3) the balance of P2,520,305.63 on October 31, 1998, the stipulated delivery date of the unit; provided that if the construction is completed earlier, Tanseco would pay the balance within seven days from receipt of a notice of turnover. Tanseco paid all installments due up to January, 1998, leaving unpaid the balance of P2,520,305.63 pending delivery of the unit. Megaworld, however, failed to deliver the unit within the stipulated period on October 31, 1998 or April 30, 1999, the last day of the six-month grace period.

A few days shy of three years later, Megaworld, by notice dated April 23, 2002 (notice of turnover), informed Tanseco that the unit was ready for inspection preparatory to delivery. Tanseco replied through counsel, by letter of May 6, 2002, that in view of Megaworld‘s failure to deliver the unit on time, she was demanding the return of P14,281,731.70 representing the total installment payment she had made, with interest at 12% per annum from April 30, 1999, the expiration of the six-month grace period. Tanseco pointed out that none of the excepted causes of delay existed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a fortuitous event in the case at bar RULING:

The Contract to Buy and Sell of the parties contains reciprocal obligations, i.e., to complete and deliver the condominium unit on October 31, 1998 or six months thereafter on the part of Megaworld, and to pay the balance of the purchase price at or about the time of delivery on the part of Tanseco. Compliance by Megaworld with its obligation is determinative of compliance by Tanseco with her obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price. Megaworld having failed to comply with its obligation under the contract, it is liable therefor.

That Megaworld‘s sending of a notice of turnover preceded Tanseco‘s demand for refund does not abate her cause. For demand would have been useless, Megaworld admittedly having failed in its obligation to deliver the unit on the agreed date.

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the 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.

The Court cannot generalize the 1997 Asian financial crisis to be unforeseeable and beyond the control of a business corporation. A real estate enterprise engaged in the pre-selling of

condominium units is concededly a master in projections on commodities and currency movements, as well as business risks. The fluctuating movement of the Philippine peso in the foreign exchange market is an everyday occurrence, hence, not an instance of caso fortuito. Megaworld‘s excuse for its delay does not thus lie.

Page 141 of 745 ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC. versus LULU V. JORGE

and CESAR JORGE G.R. NO. 159617 August 8, 2007 FACTS:

On different dates from September to October 1987, Lulu V. Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam located at No. 17 Aguirre Ave., BF Homes Parañaque, Metro Manila, to secure a loan in the total amount of P59, 500.00. On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. Petitioner Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter dated October 19, 1987 informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident in the pawnshop. On November 2, 1987, respondent Lulu then wrote a letter to petitioner Sicam expressing disbelief stating that when the robbery happened, all jewelry pawned were deposited with Far East Bank near the pawnshop since it had been the practice that before they could withdraw, advance notice must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw the jewelry from the bank. Respondent Lulu then requested petitioner Sicam to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal on November 6, 1987 but petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry.

On September 28, 1988, respondent Lulu joined by her husband, Cesar Jorge, filed a complaint against petitioner Sicam with the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking

indemnification for the loss of pawned jewelry and payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. However, petitioner Sicam contends that he is not the real party-in-interest as the pawnshop was incorporated on April 20, 1987 and known as Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc; that petitioner corporation had exercised due care and diligence in the

safekeeping of the articles pledged with it and could not be made liable for an event that is fortuitous. After trial ,the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing respondents‘ complaint as well as petitioners‘ counterclaim. The RTC held that robbery is a fortuitous event which exempts the victim from liability for the loss and under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code. It further held that the corresponding diligence required of a pawnshop is that it should take steps to secure and protect the pledged items and should take steps to insure itself against the loss of articles which are entrusted to its custody as it derives earnings from the pawnshop trade which petitioners failed to do and that robberies and hold-ups are foreseeable risks in that those engaged in the pawnshop business are expected to foresee.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioners are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession. RULING:

Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is

commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. To constitute a fortuitous event, the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to comply with obligations must be independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the event that 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 obligations in a normal manner; and, (d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss.

Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the possibility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners. The presentation of the police report of the Parañaque Police Station on the robbery committed based on the report of petitioners'

employees is not sufficient to establish robbery. Such report also does not prove that petitioners were not at fault. Also, the robbery in this case took place in 1987 when robbery was already prevalent and petitioners in fact had already foreseen it as they wanted to deposit the pawn with a nearby bank for safekeeping. Thus, petitioners are negligent in securing their pawnshop.

Page 142 of 745 Florencia Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 95897, December 14, 1999