CIPRIANO v CA (1996)
[G.R. No. 107968. October 30, 1996] ELIAS S. CIPRIANO and/or E.S. CIPRIANO ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS and MACLIN ELECTRONICS, INC., respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Elias S. Cipriano is the owner of E.S. Cipriano Enterprises, which is engaged in the rustproofing of vehicles, under the style Motobilkote. 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,iii[3] which showed the date it was received for rustproofing as well its condition at the time.
According to the petitioner, the car was brought to his 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 respondent’s Kia Pride.
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.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) 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.
(2) CA: affirmed RTC.
ISSUE:
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
FACTS:
Petitioner Elias S. Cipriano is the owner of E.S. Cipriano Enterprises, which is engaged in the rustproofing of vehicles, under the style Motobilkote. 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,iii[3] which showed the date it was received for rustproofing as well its condition at the time.
According to the petitioner, the car was brought to his 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 respondent’s Kia Pride.
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.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) 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.
(2) CA: affirmed RTC.
ISSUE:
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
RULING:
Yes. We have already held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se.
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.
Yes. We have already held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se.
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment