By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Bare-faced assertion not enough n to support claim for fortuitous event
Petitioner Ernesto P. Canada (petitioner) is engaged in business of providing trucking and hauling services under the name Hi-Ball Freight Services. Respondent All Commodities Marketing Corporation (respondent) has been a valued client of petitioner for several years.
On October 27, 1986, respondent contracted petitioner’s services to haul and deliver one thousand (1,000) sacks of sugar from Pier 18, North Harbor in Tondo, Manila to the Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila (now Muntinlupa City). The transaction was covered by Way Bills/Delivery Receipt Nos. 5340 and 5341 of All Star Transport, Inc. (All Star), but duly signed by petitioner’s driver. As agreed, petitioner loaded respondent’s 1,000 sacks of sugar into his two (2) trucks; however, the same were never delivered to the Pepsi Cola Plant. The drivers of the trucks, along with the helpers, had since vanished into thin air.
Respondent demanded payment of the value of the sugar, but the demand was not heeded. Consequently, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati to recover the value of the lost sugar. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 18826.
In his answer, petitioner admitted that respondent contracted him to haul and deliver 1,000 sacks of sugar, but denied that the cargo did not reach their destination. He averred that the cargo were delivered to the Pepsi Cola Plant in Muntinlupa City on October 27, 1986. He rejected responsibility for the claim arguing that the loss of the goods was either due to respondent’s negligence or due to fortuitous event. By way of counterclaim, petitioner asserted his right to payment of P350,000.00, representing the value of the truck that was allegedly seized by respondent.
Is the petitioner exculpated from liability due to caso fortuito?
Petitioner also attempted to exculpate himself from liability by insisting that the incident was a caso fortuito. We disagree.
The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito may be availed of only when: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the human will; (b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the accident.
None of these elements is present in this case. Other than petitioner’s bare-faced assertion that the cargo were lost due to fortuitous event, no evidence was offered to substantiate it. On the contrary, we find supported by evidence on record the conclusions of the trial court and the CA that the loss of the sugar was due to the negligence of petitioner. The CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in sustaining the finding of liability against petitioner. (Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 146141, (17 October 2008), 590 Phil 342-352)