Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    04 Austria V CA

    Uploaded by

    Frances Grace Damazo
    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. While walking home, Abad's purse containing the jewelry was snatched by two men during a robbery. When Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value, Austria sued the Abad spouses. The court ruled that the Abad spouses were not liable as the robbery qualified as a fortuitous event exempting them from responsibility under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as the robbery was independent of their will and occurred without their fault or negligence.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    04 Austria V CA

    Uploaded by

    Frances Grace Damazo
    96 views1 page
    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. While walking home, Abad's purse containing the jewelry was snatched by two men during a robbery. When Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value, Austria sued the Abad spouses. The court ruled that the Abad spouses were not liable as the robbery qualified as a fortuitous event exempting them from responsibility under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as the robbery was independent of their will and occurred without their fault or negligence.

    Original Description:

    Obligations and Contracts

    Original Title

    04 Austria v CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. While walking home, Abad's purse containing the jewelry was snatched by two men during a robbery. When Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value, Austria sued the Abad spouses. The court ruled that the Abad spouses were not liable as the robbery qualified as a fortuitous event exempting them from responsibility under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as the robbery was independent of their will and occurred without their fault or negligence.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views1 page

    04 Austria V CA

    Uploaded by

    Frances Grace Damazo
    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. While walking home, Abad's purse containing the jewelry was snatched by two men during a robbery. When Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value, Austria sued the Abad spouses. The court ruled that the Abad spouses were not liable as the robbery qualified as a fortuitous event exempting them from responsibility under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as the robbery was independent of their will and occurred without their fault or negligence.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Austria v. CA G.R. No. L-29640, 10 June 1971 Reyes, J. B. L., J.

    FACTS: Maria G. Abad received from Guillermo Austria a pendant with diamonds which was to be sold on a commission basis or to be returned on demand. While walking home, Abad was accosted by two men and the purse containing the said jewelry was snatched from her. As Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its value, Austria brought an action against the Abad spouses for recovery of the pendant or of its value and damages. Answering the allegations, the Abad spouses claimed that the alleged robbery had extinguished their obligation.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Abad spouses should be held liable for the loss of the jewelry

    RULING: No. The exempting provision of Article 1174 of the Civil Code is applicable in the case. 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. To constitute a caso fortuito (fortuitous event) that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary that (1) the event must be independent of the human will or obligors will; (2) the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner, and that (3) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. It is not necessary the persons responsible for the event should be found or punished. It is sufficient that the robbery took place without concurrent fault or negligence on the part of the obligor which can be proven by preponderant evidence. The act of Maria Abad walking home alone carrying the jewelry was not negligent for in 1961, when the robbery in question did take place, for at that time criminality had not by far reached the levels attained in the present day.

    You might also like