[G.R. No. No. 124922. 124922. June 22, 1998]
JIMMY CO, doing business under the n!e " st#$e %R&G %R&GON ON M'( M'(&) M&N* M&N*+ +&C(* &C(*RI RING NG,, eti etitio tione ner r, -s. -s. CO*R( CO*R( O+ &'&) &'&) nd /RO /RO&%0 &%0& &Y MO(OR MO(OR &)' COROR&(ION, Resondents. %'CIION M&R(IN', J.3
On July 18, 1990, petitioner entrusted his Nissan pick-up car 1988 model[1] to private respondent - which is enaed in the sale, distri!ution and repair o" motor vehicles - "or the "ollowin #o! repair services and supply o" parts$ - %leed in#ection pump and all no&&les' - (d#ust valve tappet' - )hane oil and *lter' - Open up and service "our wheel !rakes, clean and ad#ust' - +u!ricate accelerator linkaes' - eplace aircon !elt' and - eplace !attery[] .rivate respondent undertook to return the vehicle on July 1, 1990 1990 "ull "ully y serv servic iced ed and and supp suppli lied ed in acco accord rdan ance ce with with the the #o! #o! contract/ ("ter petitioner paid in "ull the repair !ill in the amount o".1,9/00,[] private respondent issued to him a ate pass "or the release o" the vehicle on said date/ %ut came July 1, 1990, the latter could not release the vehicle as its !attery was weak and was not yet replaced/ +e"t with no option, petitioner himsel" !ouh ouhtt a new new !atter ttery y near ear!y and del delivere ered it to priv rivate
respondent "or installation on the same day/ 2owever, the !attery was not installed and the delivery o" the car was rescheduled to July 3, 1990 or three 45 days later/ 6hen petitioner souht to reclaim his car in the a"ternoon o" July 3, 1990, he was told that it was carnapped earlier that mornin while !ein road-tested !y private respondent7s employee alon .edro il and .ere& treets in .aco, :anila/ .rivate respondent said that the incident was reported to the police/ 2avin "ailed to recover his car and its accessories or the value thereo", petitioner *led a suit "or damaes aainst private respondent anchorin his claim on the latter7s alleed nelience/ ;or its part, private respondent contended that it has no lia!ility !ecause the car was lost as a result o" a "ortuitous event - the carnappin/ 5he cost o" the Nissan .ick-up "our 435 door when the plainti? purchased it "rom the de"endant is .,@00/00 eAcludin accessories which were installed in the vehicle !y the plainti? consistin o" "our 435 !rand new tires, mawheels, stereo speaker, ampli*er which amount all in all to .0,000/00/ Bt is areed that the vehicle was lost on July 3, 1990 CapproAimately two 45 years and *ve 4@5 months "rom the date o" the purchase/7 Bt was areed that the plainti? paid the de"endant the cost o" service and repairs as early as July 1, 1990 in the amount o" .1,9/00 which amount was received and duly receipted !y the de"endant company/ Bt was also areed that the present value o" a !rand new vehicle o" the same type at this time is .3@,000/00 without accessories/D[3] >hey likewise areed that the sole issue "or trial was who !etween the parties shall !ear the loss o" the vehicle which necessitates the resolution o" whether private respondent was indeed nelient/[@] ("ter trial, the court a quo "ound private respondent uilty o" delay in the per"ormance o" its o!liation and held it lia!le to petitioner "or the value o" the lost vehicle and its accessories plus interest and attorney7s "ees/[E] On appeal, the )ourt o" (ppeals 4)(5 reversed the rulin o" the lower court and ordered the dismissal o" petitioner7s damae suit/ [] >he )( ruled that$ 415 the trial court was limited to resolvin the issue o"
nelience as areed durin pre-trial' hence it cannot pass on the issue o" delay' and 45 the vehicle was lost due to a "ortuitous event/ Bn a petition "or review to this )ourt, the principal Fuery raised is whether a repair shop can !e held lia!le "or the loss o" a customer7s vehicle while the same is in its custody "or repair or other #o! servicesG >he )ourt resolves the Fuery in "avor o" the customer/ ;irst, on the technical aspect involved/ )ontrary to the )(7s pronouncement, the rule that the determination o" issues at a pretrial con"erence !ars the consideration o" other issues on appeal, eAcept those that may involve privilee or impeachin matter,[8] is inapplica!le to this case/ >he Fuestion o" delay, thouh not speci*cally mentioned as an issue at the pre-trial may !e tackled !y the court considerin that it is necessarily intertwined and intimately connected with the principal issue areed upon !y the parties, i/e/ who will !ear the loss and whether there was nelience/ .etitioner7s imputation o" nelience to private respondent is premised on delay which is the very !asis o" the "ormer7s complaint/ >hus, it was unavoida!le "or the court to resolve the case, particularly the Fuestion o" nelience without considerin whether private respondent was uilty o" delay in the per"ormance o" its o!liation/ On the merits/ Bt is a not a de"ense "or a repair shop o" motor vehicles to escape lia!ility simply !ecause the damae or loss o" a thin law"ully placed in its possession was due to carnappin/ )arnappin per se cannot !e considered as a "ortuitous event/ >he "act that a thin was unlaw"ully and "orce"ully taken "rom another7s riht"ul possession, as in cases o" carnappin, does not automatically ive rise to a "ortuitous event/ >o !e considered as such, carnappin entails more than the mere "orce"ul takin o" another7s property/ Bt must !e proved and esta!lished that the event was an act o" od or was done solely !y third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleed to !e nelient has any participation/[9] Bn accordance with the ules o" evidence, the !urden o" provin that the loss was due to a "ortuitous event rests on him who invokes it [10]- which in this case is the private respondent/ 2owever, other than the police report o" the alleed
carnappin incident, no other evidence was presented !y private respondent to the e?ect that the incident was not due to its "ault/ ( police report o" an alleed crime, to which only private respondent is privy, does not suHce to esta!lished the carnappin/ Neither does it prove that there was no "ault on the part o" private respondent notwithstandin the parties7 areement at the pre-trial that the car was carnapped/ )arnappin does not "oreclose the possi!ility o" "ault or nelience on the part o" private respondent/ Iven assumin arguendo that carnappin was duly esta!lished as a "ortuitous event, still private respondent cannot escape lia!ility/ (rticle 11E@ [11] o" the New )ivil )ode makes an o!lior who is uilty o" delay responsi!le even "or a "ortuitous event until he has e?ected the delivery/ Bn this case, private respondent was already in delay as it was supposed to deliver petitioner7s car three 45 days !e"ore it was lost/ .etitioner7s areement to the rescheduled delivery does not de"eat his claim as private respondent had already !reached its o!liation/ :oreover, such accession cannot !e construed as waiver o" petitioner7s riht to hold private respondent lia!le !ecause the car was unusa!le and thus, petitioner had no option !ut to leave it/ (ssumin "urther that there was no delay, still workin aainst private respondent is the leal presumption under (rticle 1E@ that its possession o" the thin at the time it was lost was due to its "ault/[1] >his presumption is reasona!le since he who has the custody and care o" the thin can easily eAplain the circumstances o" the loss/ >he vehicle owner has no duty to show that the repair shop was at "ault/ (ll that petitioner needs to prove, as claimant, is the simple "act that private respondent was in possession o" the vehicle at the time it was lost/ Bn this case, private respondent7s possession at the time o" the loss is undisputed/ )onseFuently, the !urden shi"ts to the possessor who needs to present controvertin evidence suHcient enouh to overcome that presumption/ :oreover, the eAemptin circumstances - earthFuake, ood, storm or other natural calamity - when the presumption o" "ault is not applica!le [1] do not concur in this case/ (ccordinly, havin "ailed to re!ut the presumption
and since the case does not "all under the eAceptions, private respondent is answera!le "or the loss/ Bt must likewise !e emphasi&ed that pursuant to (rticles 113 and 1E o" the New )ivil )ode, lia!ility attaches even i" the loss was due to a "ortuitous event i" =the nature o" the o!liation reFuires the assumption o" riskD/[13] )arnappin is a normal !usiness risk "or those enaed in the repair o" motor vehicles/ ;or #ust as the owner is eAposed to that risk so is the repair shop since the car was entrusted to it/ >hat is why, repair shops are reFuired to *rst reister with the rade and Bndustry 4<>B5[1@] and to secure an insurance policy "or the =shop coverin the property entrusted !y its customer "or repair, service or maintenanceD as a pre-reFuisite "or such reistrationKaccreditation/[1E] Liolation o" this statutory duty constitutes nelience per se/[1] 2avin taken custody o" the vehicle, private respondent is o!lied not only to repair the vehicle !ut must also provide the customer with some "orm o" security "or his property over which he loses immediate control/ (n owner who cannot eAercise the seven 45 juses or attri!utes o" ownership M the riht to possess, to use and en#oy, to a!use or consume, to accessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate and to the "ruits -[18] is a crippled owner/ ;ailure o" the repair shop to provide security to a motor vehicle owner would leave the latter at the mercy o" the "ormer/ :oreover, on the assumption that private respondent7s repair !usiness is duly reistered, it presupposes that its shop is covered !y insurance "rom which it may recover the loss/ B" private respondent can recover "rom its insurer, then it would !e un#ustly enriched i" it will not compensate petitioner to whom no "ault can !e attri!uted/ Otherwise, i" the shop is not reistered, then the presumption o" nelience applies/ One last thin/ 6ith respect to the value o" the lost vehicle and its accessories "or which the repair shop is lia!le, it should !e !ased on the "air market value that the property would command at the time it was entrusted to it or such other value as areed upon !y the parties su!seFuent to the loss/ uch recovera!le value is "air and reasona!le considerin that the value o" the vehicle depreciates/ >his value may !e recovered without
pre#udice to such other damaes that a claimant is entitled under applica!le laws/ 0'R'+OR', premises considered, the decision o" the )ourt (ppeals is ILII< and I> (B(>I
