8.
G.R. No. L-6195
January 17, 1911
N.T. HASHIM and CO., plaintiff-app plaintiff-appellant, ellant, vs. ROCHA and CO., defendant-appellee. CO., defendant-appellee. Facts:
The defendant company discharged a part of a large shipment of potatoes into a lorcha, which was then left for two days in the sum, tightly closed and without ventilation. At the same time several thousand crates of potatoes from the same shipment were discharged into numerous cascos. The latter were delivered in the usual condition under the circumstances, but those in the lorcha were rotted and of no use of value. Issue: Whether or not the Defendant company (owner of the ship) can be held liable for the damages sustained by the Plaintiff (Shipper of Potatoes) Ruling: The Court held in the affirmative. Defendant was guilty of gross negligence with respect to the car of the potatoes on board the lorcha and is liable for the loss resulting therefrom. A judgment is hereby given against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P3,865.31, with costs of this appeal. So ordered.
9. G.R. No. 4895. June 15, 1909 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS , plaintiff-appellant, vs. W. O. BINGHAM, C. D. SQUIRES, and ALBERT BRYAN , defendants-appellees. Facts:
On the 22d day of August, 1906, the said Bingham, with the other two defendants as sureties, obtained permission from the authorities of the Insular Government to purchase and keep one revolver and one hundred rounds of ammunition, with the condition that he would deliver the same to the Government of the Philippine Islands on demand. Prior to the time when the demand was made for the return of the said revolver and ammunition, Bingham was engaged in the business of pearl fishing and while thus engaged a severe storm overtook him, and his boat was sunk in eighty fathoms of water, through no fault of his or of his crew, and the said revolver and ammunition being on board, went down and were lost. The violence of the storm was such that neither the said Bingham nor any member of the crew had time to save the said revolver and ammunition and it was impossible to recover the same on account of the depth of the sea wherein they were lost. Issue: Whether or not Defendant can be held liable for the amount of the bond for failure to perform his obligation Ruling
Court held in the negative. An obligation, consisting in the delivery of a specified thing, shall be extinguished when the said thing shall be lost or destroyed without the fault of the obligor and before he shall be in default. No one shall be liable for events (obligations) which could not be foreseen, or which being foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of cases expressly mentioned in the law, or in those in which the obligation so declares. In the absence of stipulations to contrary, impossibility of performance, without the negligence of the parties, prevents the enforcement of bond or contract.
10.
G.R. No. 10006
September 18, 1915
YAP KIM CHUAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO M .TIAOQUI, defendant-appellant.
plaintiff leased the building at No. 218 Calle Rosario, owned by the defendant, up to December 31 of the same year, undertaking to pay therefor the sum of P310 from said March 15 to June 30, 1913, and P315 from the subsequent first of July until the termination of the lease; and that on April 14, 1913, because of the leaks in the roof of the storeroom of said building, without fault or negligence on the plaintiff's part, some of his merchandise stored in said storeroom was so wet and damaged as to cause him a loss amounting to P1,169. Facts:
Consequently, on April 15, 1913, a list of the damaged goods was made out in the presence of the plaintiff, the defendant and a notary public; that afterwards the defendant expressly authorized the plaintiff to sell he damaged goods at any price, promising to pay the difference between the selling price and the regular price of the articles in good condition; that by virtue of said authorization and promise, plaintiff accordingly disposed of all the damaged goods that could be sold, at a loss of P1,169; and that notwithstanding the repeated demands made upon him to pay this amount, according to promise, said defendant had refused and refuses to pay. Issue: whether or not the owner of a tenement, is responsible for the deterioration of the goods. Ruling: The Court held in the negative. A fortuitous event is an accident independent of the obligor's will to carry out some stipulation and it is plain that for him to escape the imputation of not performing his obligation he must be placed in a situation arising from an unforeseen event, or in one where, even if he had foreseen it, still he could not have avoided it, by reason of the fact that its unexpectedness and inevitability places it beyond human control. Nobody is responsible for such unforeseen and inevitable occurrences in the case of a fortuitous event or force majeure, unless the law expressly so states or such responsibility has been expressly stipulated in the obligation.