Servando v Phil Steam (Torts)

SERVANDO v PHIL STEAM [G.R. Nos. L-36481-2. October 23, 1982.] AMPARO C. SERVANDO, CLARA UY BICO, plaintiffs- appellees, vs. PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO., defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Appellees Clara Uy Bico and Amparo Servando loaded their respective cargoes on board appellant's vessel for carriage from Manila to Negros Occidental. Upon arrival of the vessel at the place of destination, the cargoes were discharged, complete and in good order, into the warehouse of the Bureau of Customs. After appellee Uy Bico had taken delivery of apportion of her cargoes, the warehouse was rated by fire of unknown origin, destroying the rest of the two appellees' cargoes. Appellees filed their claims from appellant for the recovery of the value of the goods destroyed by fire.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Trial Court: ruled in favor of appellees and ordered payment of their claims, stating that since the burning of the warehouse occurred before actual or constructive delivery of the goods to the appellees, the loss is chargeable against the appellant.

ISSUE:
Whether Philippine Steam Navigation Co. is liable?

RULING: 
No.
Appellant, as obligor, is exempt from liability for non- performance because the burning of the warehouse containing appellees' goods, which is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, is a fortuitous event or force majeure which could not have been foreseen by appellant.

Where fortuitous event or force majeure is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is exempt from liability for non- performance. (See Art. 1174 of the New Civil Code.)
The Partidas(Law II, Title 33, Partida 7), the antecedent of Article 1174 of the Civil Code, defines "caso fortuito" as "an event that takes place by accident and could not been have foreseen. Examples of this are destruction of houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of robbers."

In the dissertation of the phrase "caso fortuito" the Encyclopedia Juridicada Española says: "In a legal sense and consequently, also in relation to contracts, caso fortuito presents the following essential characteristics:
(1) the cause of the unforseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will;
(2) it must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; 
(3) the occurrence must be such as to render it imposible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and
(4) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to creditor."

There is nothing in the record to show that appellant carrier incurred in delay in the performance of its obligation. It appears that appellant had not only notified appellees of the arrival of their shipment, out had demanded that the same be withdrawn. In fact, pursuant to such demand, appellee Uy Bico had taken delivery of 907 cavans of rice before the burning of the warehouse.

Nor can the appellant or its employees be charged with negligence. The storage of the goods in the Customs warehouse pending withdrawal thereof by the appellees was undoubtedly made with their knowledge and consent. Since the warehouse belonged to and was maintained by the government, it would be unfair to impute negligence to the appellant, the latter having no control whatsoever over the same.
The lower court in its decision relied on the ruling laid down in Yu Biao Sontua vs. Ossorio, 43 Phil. 511, where this Court held the defendant liable for damages arising from a fire caused by the negligence of the defendant's employees while loading cases of gasoline and petroleum products. But unlike in the said case, there is not a shred of proof in the present case that the cause of the fire that broke out in the Custom's warehouse was in any way attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its employees. Under the circumstances, the appellant is plainly not responsible.