ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter MTJ-93-850 October 2, 1996 - ROBERTO CARPIO v. RODOLFO R. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116236 October 2, 1996 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116347 October 3, 1996 - NATIVIDAD PONDOC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118091 October 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO VIERNES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120894 October 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO BAYANI

  • G.R. No. 122668 October 3, 1996 - JESSIE DE LEON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94548 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO COGONON

  • G.R. No. 106722 October 4, 1996 - JOSEMARIA G. ESTRADA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108936 October 4, 1996 - SOL LAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117323 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 117514 October 4, 1996 - MT. CARMEL COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119007 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO G. SORIA

  • G.R. No. 119290 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PIASIDAD

  • G.R. No. 90655 October 7, 1996 - DANIEL V. ZARATE, JR. v. NORMA C. OLEGARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103577 October 7, 1996 - ROMULO A. CORONEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102713 October 9, 1996 - EDWARD LITTON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117950 October 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARADAM DE MANUEL

  • G.R. No. 119417 October 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR CLETO VARONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 116172 October 10, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.-CEBU v. BIENVENlDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1227 October 11, 1996 - RENATO L. LIRIO v. ARTURO A. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 104624 October 11, 1996 - SAN PEDRO HOSPITAL OF DIGOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108919 October 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. CORDERO

  • G.R. No. 89075 October 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO GEROLAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108433 October 15, 1996 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118320 October 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO E. CABODOC

  • G.R. No. 119014 October 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOJO P. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79543 October 16, 1996 - JOSE D. FILOTEO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111401 October 17, 1996 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120385 October 17, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120961 October 17, 1996 - DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121574 October 17, 1996 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107741 October 18, 1996 - FRANCISCO BERNARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109834 October 18, 1996 - CECILE SAN JUAN DITCHING, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110007 October 18, 1996 - HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC. v. JEROME JOAQUIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120008 October 18, 1996 - PHIL. ADVERTISING COUNSELORS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ- 95-1051 October 21, 1996 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. BRICCIO A. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 106427 October 21, 1996 - INTER-ASIA SERVICES CORP. (INT’L.) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108461 October 21, 1996 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., ET AL. v. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116013 October 21, 1996 - ANANIAS SOCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105961 October 22, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO SUMAOY

  • G.R. No. 113926 October 23, 1996 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST CO. v. RTC-MAKATI, BR. 61, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97935 October 23, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL T. ALIPOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113926 October 23, 1996 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST CO. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-MAKATI, BR. 61, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98310 October 24, 1996 - MATUGUINA INTEGRATED WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106817 October 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN RAPANUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114129 October 24, 1996 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118347 October 24, 1996 - VICENTE LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101213-14 October 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY APILO

  • G.R. No. 112148 October 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO JUBILAG

  • G.R. No. 115953 October 28, 1996 - GENOVEVA LIGOT SEMPIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116175 October 28, 1996 - PEDRO V. SOLIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120506 October 28, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120730 October 28, 1996 - RAMON J. BERNARDO, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-956 October 30, 1996 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ARTURO A. ALAGABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102772 October 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO C. DEOPANTE

  • G.R. No. 107968 October 30, 1996 - ELIAS S. CIPRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110296 October 30, 1996 - MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113116 October 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 121506 October 30, 1996 - MACTAN CEBU INT’L. AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121519 October 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122256 October 30, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123643 October 30, 1996 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 107968   October 30, 1996 - ELIAS S. CIPRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 107968. October 30, 1996.]

    ELIAS S. CIPRIANO and/or E. S. CIPRIANO ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MACLIN ELECTRONICS, INC., Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CIVIL LAW; EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; QUASI-DELICTS; A VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY DUTY IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE. — We have already held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se. In F .F . Cruz and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held the owner of a furniture shop liable for the destruction of the plaintiff’s house in a fire which started in his establishment in view of his failure to comply with an ordinance which required the construction of a firewall. In Teaque v. Fernandez, we stated that where the very injury which was intended to be prevented by the ordinance has happened, non-compliance with the ordinance was not only an act of negligence, but also the proximate cause of the death. Indeed, the existence of a contract between petitioner and private respondent does not bar a finding of negligence under the principles of quasi delict, as we recently held in Fabre v. Court of Appeals. Petitioner’s negligence is the source of his obligation. He is not being held liable for breach of his contractual obligation due to negligence but for his negligence in not complying with a duty imposed on him by law. It is therefore immaterial that the loss occasioned to private respondent was due to a fortuitous event, since it was petitioner’s negligence in not insuring against the risk which was the proximate cause of the loss.

    2. ID.; DAMAGES; AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES; THE REASONS OR GROUNDS THEREFOR MUST BE STATED IN THE TEXT OF THE DECISION. — We think, that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the award of attorney’ 5 fees by the lower court. It is now settled that the reasons or grounds for an award of attorney’s fees must be set forth in the decision of the court. They cannot be left to inference as the appellate court held in this case. The reason for this is that it is not sound policy to penalize the right to litigate. An award of attorney’s fees, being an exception to this policy and limited to the grounds enumerated in the law, must be fully justified in the decision. It can not simply be inserted as an item of recoverable damages in the judgment of the court. Since in this case there is no justification for the award of attorney’s fees in the decision of the trial court, it was error for the Court of Appeals to sustain such award.


    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for review of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36045 which affirmed in toto the decision of Branch 58 2 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, ordering the petitioner to pay P252,155.00 to private respondent for the loss of the latter’s vehicle while undergoing rustproofing and P10,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

    The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Petitioner Elias S. Cipriano is the owner of E.S. Cipriano Enterprises, which is engaged in the rustproofing of vehicles, under the style Mobilkote. On April 30, 1991, private respondent Maclin Electronics, Inc., through an employee, brought a 1990 model Kia Pride People’s car to petitioner’s shop for rustproofing. The car had been purchased the year before from the Integrated Auto Sales , Inc. for P252,155.00.

    The vehicle was received in the shop under Job Order No. 123581, 3 which showed the date it was received for rustproofing as well its condition at the time. Neither the time of acceptance nor the hour of release, however, was specified. According to the petitioner, the car was brought to this shop at 10 o’clock in the morning of April 30, 1991 and was ready for release later that afternoon, as it took only six hours to complete the process of rustproofing.

    In the afternoon of May 1, 1991, fire broke out at the Lambat restaurant, which petitioner also owned, adjoining his Mobilkote rustproofing shop. The fire destroyed both the shop and the restaurant, including private respondents’ Kia Pride. The car had been kept inside the building, allegedly to protect it from theft. Petitioner claimed that despite efforts to save the vehicle, there was simply not enough time to get it out of the building, unlike three other cars which had been saved because they were parked near the entrance of the garage. 4

    On May 8, 1991, private respondent sent a letter to petitioner, demanding reimbursement for the value of the Kia Pride. In reply, petitioner denied liability on the ground that the fire was a fortuitous event. This prompted private respondent to bring this suit for the value of its vehicle and for damages against petitioner. Private respondent alleged that its vehicle was lost due to the negligence and imprudence of the petitioner, citing petitioner’s failure to register his business with the Department of Trade and Industry under P.D. No. 1572 and to insure it as required in the rules implementing the Decree. 5

    In his Answer, petitioner invoked Art. 1174 of the Civil Code and denied liability for the loss which he alleged was due to a fortuitous event. He later testified that he employed an electrician who regularly inspected the lighting in his restaurant and rustproofing shop. In addition, he claimed he had installed fire-fighting devices and that the fire was an accident entirely independent of his will and devoid of any negligence on his part. He further averred that private respondent’s car was ready for release as early as afternoon of April 30, 1991 and that it was private respondent’s delay in claiming it that was the cause of the loss.

    Petitioner explained that rustproofing involved spraying asphalt-like materials underneath a motor vehicle so that rust will not corrode its body and that the materials and chemicals used for this purpose are not inflammable. Therefore, he could not be made to assume the risk of loss due to fire. He also claimed that he was not required to register his business with the Department of Trade and Industry, because he was not covered by P.D. No. 1572.

    On the other hand, private respondent argued that petitioner was liable for the loss of the car even if it was caused by a fortuitous event. It contended that the nature of petitioner’s business required him to assume the risk because under P.D. No. 1572, petitioner was required to insure his property as well as those of his customers.

    The trial court sustained the private respondent’s contention that the "failure of defendant to comply with P.D. No. 1572 is in effect a manifest act of negligence which renders defendant [petitioner herein] liable for the loss of the car even if the same was caused by fire," 6 even as it ruled that the business of rustproofing is "definitely covered" by P.D. No. 1572. Since petitioner did not register his business and insure it, he must bear the cost of loss of his customers. As already noted, the court ordered petitioner to pay private respondent P252,155.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the filing of the case and attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00.

    On appeal, the decision was affirmed. The Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to this case, and that the law applicable to the case is P.D. No. 1572, the purpose of which is to protect customers who entrust their properties to service and repair enterprises. The Court of Appeals held that by virtue of the provisions of P.D. No. 1572 and its implementing rules and regulations which require fire insurance coverage prior to accreditation, owners of service and repair enterprises assume the risk of loss of their customer’s property. The appellate court stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Defendant-appellant was operating the business of rustproofing of cars and other motor vehicles illegally at the time of the fire in question; i.e. without the necessary accreditation and license from the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is for this reason that it did not carry at least a fire insurance coverage to protect the vehicles entrusted to it by its customers. Therefore, it must bear the consequences of such illegal operation, including the risk of losses or injuries to the vehicles of its customers brought about by unforeseen or fortuitous events like the fire that gutted its shop and completely burned appellee’s car while said vehicle was in its possession. 7

    The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, ruling that although the lower court did not expressly and specifically state the reason for the award, the basis therefore could be inferred from the finding that petitioner unjustly refused to pay private respondent’s valid and demandable claim. Said the appellate court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Such wanton, reckless, and illegal operation of appellant’s business resulted in appellee’s lack of protection from the fire that gutted appellant’s shop and which completely burned its car while in appellant’s possession for rustproofing. Yet appellant adamantly and stubbornly refused to pay appellee the value of its lost car. It was, therefore, correctly ordered by the court a quo to pay appellee reasonable attorney’s fees as it had unjustly and unreasonably refused to satisfy the latter’s plainly valid, just, and demandable claim, compelling said appellee to file this action to protect its interests (Art. 2208, pars. (2) and (5), New Civil Code). 8

    Hence, this appeal. Petitioner contends that the fire which destroyed private respondent’s car was a fortuitous event for which he cannot be held responsible. In support of his argument, he cites the following provisions of the Civil Code:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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.

    ART. 1262. An obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay.

    When by law or stipulation, the obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the loss of the thing does not extinguish the obligation, and he shall be responsible for damages. The same rule applies when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk.

    The contention is without merit. The issue in this case is whether petitioner was required to insure his business and the vehicles received by him in the course of his business and, if so, whether his failure to do so constituted negligence, rendering him liable for loss due to the risk required to be insured against. We hold that both questions must be answered in the affirmative.

    We have already held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se. In F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 9 we held the owner of a furniture shop liable for the destruction of the plaintiff’s house in a fire which started in his establishment in view of his failure to comply with an ordinance which required the construction of a firewall. In Teague v. Fernandez, 10 we stated that where the very injury which was intended to be prevented by the ordinance has happened, non-compliance with the ordinance was not only an act of negligence, but also the proximate cause of the death.

    Indeed, the existence of a contract between petitioner and private respondent does not bar a finding of negligence under the principles of quasi-delict, as we recently held Fabre v. Court of Appeals. 11 Petitioner’s negligence is the source of his obligation. He is not being held liable for breach of his contractual obligation due to negligence but for his negligence in not complying with a duty imposed on him be law. It is therefore immaterial that the loss occasioned to private respondent was due to a fortuitous event, since it was petitioner’s negligence in not insuring against the risk which was the proximate cause of the loss.

    Thus, P.D. No. 1572, 1 requires service and repair enterprises for motor vehicles, like that of petitioner’s, to register with the Department of Trade and Industry. As condition for such registration or accreditation, Ministry Order No. 32 requires covered enterprises to secure insurance coverage. Rule III of this Order provides in pertinent parts. 12

    1 — REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITATION

    1) Enterprise applying for original accreditation shall submit the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1.1. List of machineries/equipment/tools in useful condition;

    1.2. List of certified engineers/accredited technicians mechanics with their personal data;

    1.3. Copy of insurance Policy of the shop covering the property entrusted by its customer for repair, service or maintenance together with a copy of the official receipt covering the full payment of premium;

    1.4. Copy of Bond referred to under Section 7, Rule III of this Rules and Regulations;

    1.5. Written service warranty in the form prescribed by the Bureau;

    1.6. Certificate issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Articles of Incorporation or Partnership in case of corporation or partnership;

    1.7. Such other documents which the director may require from time to time.

    8 — INSURANCE POLICY

    The insurance policy for the following risks like theft, pilferage, fire, flood and loss should cover exclusively the machines, motor vehicles, heavy equipment, engines, electronics, electrical, airconditioners, refrigerators, office machines and data processing equipment, medical and dental equipment, other consumer mechanical and industrial equipment stored for repair and/or service in the premises of the applicant.

    There is thus a statutory duty imposed on petitioner and it is for his failure to comply with this duty that he was guilty of negligence rendering him liable for damages to private Respondent. While the fire in this case may be considered a fortuitous event, 13 this circumstance cannot exempt petitioner from liability for loss.

    We think, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the award of attorney’s fees by the lower court. It is now settled that the reasons or grounds for an award of attorney’s fees must be set forth in the decision of the court. 14 They cannot be left to inference as the appellate court held in this case. The reason for this is that it is not sound policy to penalize the right to litigate. An award of attorney’s fees being an exception to this policy and limited to the grounds enumerated in the law, 15 must be fully justified in the decision. It can not simply be inserted as an item of recoverable damages in the judgment of the court. Since in this case there is no justification for the award of attorney’s fees in the decision of the trial court, it was error for the Court of Appeals to sustain such award.

    WHEREFORE, the decision, dated November 18, 1992, of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award of attorney’s fees is DELETED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero, Puno and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Per Justice Alicia V. Sempio Diy and concurred in by Justices Ricardo P. Galvez and Ricardo J. Francisco, chairman.

    2. Per Judge Bernardo P. Abesamis.

    3. Exh. F, Record, p. 7.

    4. Testimony of Elias Cipriano, TSN, p. 8, September 26, 1991.

    5. EMPOWERING THE SECRETARY OF TRADE TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE OPERATION OF SERVICE AND REPAIR ENTERPRISES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES, HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND ENGINES AND ENGINEERING WORKS; ELECTRONICS, ELECTRICAL, AIRCONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION; OFFICE EQUIPMENT; MEDICAL AND DENTAL EQUIPMENT; AND OTHER CONSUMER MECHANICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES OR DEVICES, INCLUDING THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL EMPLOYED THEREIN.

    6. Rollo, pp. 30-31.

    7. Id., at p. 75.

    8. Id., at p. 76.

    9. 164 SCRA 731 (1988).

    10. 51 SCRA 181 (1973).

    11. G.R. No. 111127, July 26, 1996. Accord, Singson v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117 (1968); Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 (1966).

    12. Emphasis added.

    13. See Sun Bros. Appliances, Inc. v. Perez, 7 SCRA 977 (1963); Sian v. Lopez, 96 Phil. 964 (1954); Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657 (1924).

    14. E.g., Solid Homes, Inc., v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 299 (1994); Stronghold Insurance company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 619 (1989); Mirasol v. De la Cruz, 84 SCRA 337 (1978).

    15. Art. 2208, CIVIL CODE.

    G.R. No. 107968   October 30, 1996 - ELIAS S. CIPRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED