SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 159617             August 8, 2007

ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA de R.C. SICAM, INC., petitioners, 

vs.
LULU V. JORGE and CESAR JORGE, respondents.

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Roberto C. Sicam, Jr. (petitioner

Sicam) and Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc. (petitioner corporation) seeking to annul the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2003, and its Resolution2 dated
August 8, 2003, in CA G.R. CV No. 56633.

It appears that on different dates from September to October 1987, Lulu V. Jorge
(respondent Lulu) pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam
located at No. 17 Aguirre Ave., BF Homes Parañaque, Metro Manila, to secure a loan in
the total amount of P59,500.00.

On October 19, 1987, two armed men entered the pawnshop and took away whatever
cash and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. The incident was entered in the
police blotter of the Southern Police District, Parañaque Police Station as follows:

Investigation shows that at above TDPO, while victims were inside the office, two
(2) male unidentified persons entered into the said office with guns drawn.
Suspects(sic) (1) went straight inside and poked his gun toward Romeo Sicam
and thereby tied him with an electric wire while suspects (sic) (2) poked his gun
toward Divina Mata and Isabelita Rodriguez and ordered them to lay (sic) face
flat on the floor. Suspects asked forcibly the case and assorted pawned jewelries
items mentioned above.

Suspects after taking the money and jewelries fled on board a Marson Toyota
unidentified plate number.3

Petitioner Sicam sent respondent Lulu a letter dated October 19, 1987 informing her of
the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery incident in the pawnshop. On November 2,
1987, respondent Lulu then wrote a letter4 to petitioner Sicam expressing disbelief
stating that when the robbery happened, all jewelry pawned were deposited with Far
East Bank near the pawnshop since it had been the practice that before they could
withdraw, advance notice must be given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw the
jewelry from the bank. Respondent Lulu then requested petitioner Sicam to prepare the
pawned jewelry for withdrawal on November 6, 1987 but petitioner Sicam failed to
return the jewelry.

On September 28, 1988, respondent Lulu joined by her husband, Cesar Jorge, filed a
complaint against petitioner Sicam with the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking
indemnification for the loss of pawned jewelry and payment of actual, moral and
exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. The case was docketed as Civil Case
No. 88-2035.

Petitioner Sicam filed his Answer contending that he is not the real party-in-interest as
the pawnshop was incorporated on April 20, 1987 and known as Agencia de R.C.
Sicam, Inc; that petitioner corporation had exercised due care and diligence in the
safekeeping of the articles pledged with it and could not be made liable for an event that
is fortuitous.

Respondents subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to include petitioner

corporation.

Thereafter, petitioner Sicam filed a Motion to Dismiss as far as he is concerned

considering that he is not the real party-in-interest. Respondents opposed the same.
The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated November 8, 1989.5

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision6 dated January 12, 1993,
dismissing respondents’ complaint as well as petitioners’ counterclaim. The RTC held
that petitioner Sicam could not be made personally liable for a claim arising out of a
corporate transaction; that in the Amended Complaint of respondents, they asserted
that "plaintiff pawned assorted jewelries in defendants' pawnshop"; and that as a
consequence of the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate debt or
credit is not the debt or credit of a stockholder.

The RTC further ruled that petitioner corporation could not be held liable for the loss of
the pawned jewelry since it had not been rebutted by respondents that the loss of the
pledged pieces of jewelry in the possession of the corporation was occasioned by
armed robbery; that robbery is a fortuitous event which exempts the victim from liability
for the loss, citing the case of Austria v. Court of Appeals;7 and that the parties’
transaction was that of a pledgor and pledgee and under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, the
pawnshop as a pledgee is not responsible for those events which could not be
foreseen.

Respondents appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. In a Decision dated March 31,
2003, the CA reversed the RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is GRANTED, and the

Decision dated January 12, 1993,of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch
62, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, ordering the appellees to pay
 appellants the actual value of the lost jewelry amounting to P272,000.00, and
attorney' fees of P27,200.00.8

In finding petitioner Sicam liable together with petitioner corporation, the CA applied the
doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity reasoning that respondents were misled
into thinking that they were dealing with the pawnshop owned by petitioner Sicam as all
the pawnshop tickets issued to them bear the words "Agencia de R.C. Sicam"; and that
there was no indication on the pawnshop tickets that it was the petitioner corporation
that owned the pawnshop which explained why respondents had to amend their
complaint impleading petitioner corporation.

The CA further held that the corresponding diligence required of a pawnshop is that it
should take steps to secure and protect the pledged items and should take steps to
insure itself against the loss of articles which are entrusted to its custody as it derives
earnings from the pawnshop trade which petitioners failed to do; that Austria is not
applicable to this case since the robbery incident happened in 1961 when the criminality
had not as yet reached the levels attained in the present day; that they are at least guilty
of contributory negligence and should be held liable for the loss of jewelries; and that
robberies and hold-ups are foreseeable risks in that those engaged in the pawnshop
business are expected to foresee.

The CA concluded that both petitioners should be jointly and severally held liable to
respondents for the loss of the pawned jewelry.

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 8,

2003.

Hence, the instant petition for review with the following assignment of errors:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND WHEN IT DID, IT OPENED ITSELF

TO REVERSAL, WHEN IT ADOPTED UNCRITICALLY (IN FACT IT
REPRODUCED AS ITS OWN WITHOUT IN THE MEANTIME
ACKNOWLEDGING IT) WHAT THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED IN THEIR
BRIEF, WHICH ARGUMENT WAS PALPABLY UNSUSTAINABLE.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED, AND WHEN IT DID, IT OPENED ITSELF

TO REVERSAL BY THIS HONORABLE COURT, WHEN IT AGAIN ADOPTED
UNCRITICALLY (BUT WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING IT) THE SUBMISSIONS
OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR BRIEF WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING
MORE THERETO DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE
RESPONDENTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF
UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE ON RECORD.9

Anent the first assigned error, petitioners point out that the CA’s finding that petitioner
Sicam is personally liable for the loss of the pawned jewelries is "a virtual and uncritical
reproduction of the arguments set out on pp. 5-6 of the Appellants’ brief."10
Petitioners argue that the reproduced arguments of respondents in their Appellants’
Brief suffer from infirmities, as follows:

(1) Respondents conclusively asserted in paragraph 2 of their Amended

Complaint that Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc. is the present owner of Agencia de
R.C. Sicam Pawnshop, and therefore, the CA cannot rule against said conclusive
assertion of respondents;

(2) The issue resolved against petitioner Sicam was not among those raised and
litigated in the trial court; and

(3) By reason of the above infirmities, it was error for the CA to have pierced the
corporate veil since a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its
individual stockholders or members.

Anent the second error, petitioners point out that the CA finding on their negligence is
likewise an unedited reproduction of respondents’ brief which had the following defects:

(1) There were unrebutted evidence on record that petitioners had observed the
diligence required of them, i.e, they wanted to open a vault with a nearby bank
for purposes of safekeeping the pawned articles but was discouraged by the
Central Bank (CB) since CB rules provide that they can only store the pawned
articles in a vault inside the pawnshop premises and no other place;

(2) Petitioners were adjudged negligent as they did not take insurance against
the loss of the pledged jelweries, but it is judicial notice that due to high incidence
of crimes, insurance companies refused to cover pawnshops and banks because
of high probability of losses due to robberies;

(3) In Hernandez v. Chairman, Commission on Audit (179 SCRA 39, 45-46), the

victim of robbery was exonerated from liability for the sum of money belonging to
others and lost by him to robbers.

Respondents filed their Comment and petitioners filed their Reply thereto. The parties
subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda.

We find no merit in the petition.

To begin with, although it is true that indeed the CA findings were exact reproductions of
the arguments raised in respondents’ (appellants’) brief filed with the CA, we find the
same to be not fatally infirmed. Upon examination of the Decision, we find that it
expressed clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based as required by
Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution. The discretion to decide a case one way or
another is broad enough to justify the adoption of the arguments put forth by one of the
parties, as long as these are legally tenable and supported by law and the facts on
records.11
Our jurisdiction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of errors of
law committed by the appellate court. Generally, the findings of fact of the appellate
court are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and calibrate all
over again the evidence adduced by the parties in the court a quo.12 This rule, however,
is not without exceptions, such as where the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and
the trial court are conflicting or contradictory13 as is obtaining in the instant case.

However, after a careful examination of the records, we find no justification to absolve

petitioner Sicam from liability.

The CA correctly pierced the veil of the corporate fiction and adjudged petitioner Sicam
liable together with petitioner corporation. The rule is that the veil of corporate fiction
may be pierced when made as a shield to perpetrate fraud and/or confuse legitimate
issues. 14 The theory of corporate entity was not meant to promote unfair objectives or
otherwise to shield them.15

Notably, the evidence on record shows that at the time respondent Lulu pawned her
jewelry, the pawnshop was owned by petitioner Sicam himself. As correctly observed by
the CA, in all the pawnshop receipts issued to respondent Lulu in September 1987, all
bear the words "Agencia de R. C. Sicam," notwithstanding that the pawnshop was
allegedly incorporated in April 1987. The receipts issued after such alleged
incorporation were still in the name of "Agencia de R. C. Sicam," thus inevitably
misleading, or at the very least, creating the wrong impression to respondents and the
public as well, that the pawnshop was owned solely by petitioner Sicam and not by a
corporation.

Even petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Marcial T. Balgos, in his letter16 dated October 15, 1987
addressed to the Central Bank, expressly referred to petitioner Sicam as the proprietor
of the pawnshop notwithstanding the alleged incorporation in April 1987.

We also find no merit in petitioners' argument that since respondents had alleged in
their Amended Complaint that petitioner corporation is the present owner of the
pawnshop, the CA is bound to decide the case on that basis.

Section 4 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission, verbal or written,
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Thus, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it
and does not require proof, admits of two exceptions, to wit: (1) when it is shown that
such admission was made through palpable mistake, and (2) when it is shown that no
such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an
admission by denying that he made such an admission. 17
The Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court explained the second exception in
this wise:

x x x if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party, but cites the

admission "out of context," then the one making the "admission" may show that
he made no "such" admission, or that his admission was taken out of context.

x x x that the party can also show that he made no "such admission", i.e.,
not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear.

That is the reason for the modifier "such" because if the rule simply states that
the admission may be contradicted by showing that "no admission was made,"
the rule would not really be providing for a contradiction of the admission but just
a denial.18 (Emphasis supplied).

While it is true that respondents alleged in their Amended Complaint that petitioner
corporation is the present owner of the pawnshop, they did so only because petitioner
Sicam alleged in his Answer to the original complaint filed against him that he was not
the real party-in-interest as the pawnshop was incorporated in April 1987. Moreover, a
reading of the Amended Complaint in its entirety shows that respondents referred to
both petitioner Sicam and petitioner corporation where they (respondents) pawned their
assorted pieces of jewelry and ascribed to both the failure to observe due diligence
commensurate with the business which resulted in the loss of their pawned jewelry.

Markedly, respondents, in their Opposition to petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss Amended

Complaint, insofar as petitioner Sicam is concerned, averred as follows:

Roberto C. Sicam was named the defendant in the original complaint because
the pawnshop tickets involved in this case did not show that the R.C. Sicam
Pawnshop was a corporation. In paragraph 1 of his Answer, he admitted the
allegations in paragraph 1 and 2 of the Complaint. He merely added "that
defendant is not now the real party in interest in this case."

It was defendant Sicam's omission to correct the pawnshop tickets used in the
subject transactions in this case which was the cause of the instant action. He
cannot now ask for the dismissal of the complaint against him simply on the mere
allegation that his pawnshop business is now incorporated. It is a matter of
defense, the merit of which can only be reached after consideration of the
evidence to be presented in due course.19

Unmistakably, the alleged admission made in respondents' Amended Complaint was

taken "out of context" by petitioner Sicam to suit his own purpose. Ineluctably, the fact
that petitioner Sicam continued to issue pawnshop receipts under his name and not
under the corporation's name militates for the piercing of the corporate veil.
We likewise find no merit in petitioners' contention that the CA erred in piercing the veil
of corporate fiction of petitioner corporation, as it was not an issue raised and litigated
before the RTC.

Petitioner Sicam had alleged in his Answer filed with the trial court that he was not the
real party-in-interest because since April 20, 1987, the pawnshop business initiated by
him was incorporated and known as Agencia de R.C. Sicam. In the pre-trial brief filed by
petitioner Sicam, he submitted that as far as he was concerned, the basic issue was
whether he is the real party in interest against whom the complaint should be
directed.20 In fact, he subsequently moved for the dismissal of the complaint as to him
but was not favorably acted upon by the trial court. Moreover, the issue was squarely
passed upon, although erroneously, by the trial court in its Decision in this manner:

x x x The defendant Roberto Sicam, Jr likewise denies liability as far as he is

concerned for the reason that he cannot be made personally liable for a claim
arising from a corporate transaction.

This Court sustains the contention of the defendant Roberto C. Sicam, Jr. The
amended complaint itself asserts that "plaintiff pawned assorted jewelries in
defendant's pawnshop." It has been held that " as a consequence of the separate
juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate debt or credit is not the debt
or credit of the stockholder, nor is the stockholder's debt or credit that of a
corporation.21

Clearly, in view of the alleged incorporation of the pawnshop, the issue of whether
petitioner Sicam is personally liable is inextricably connected with the determination of
the question whether the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should or should not
apply to the case.

The next question is whether petitioners are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in
their possession.

Petitioners insist that they are not liable since robbery is a fortuitous event and they are
not negligent at all.

We are not persuaded.

Article 1174 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise
declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. It

is therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as
is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere
difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. 22

To constitute a fortuitous event, the following elements must concur: (a) the cause of
the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to comply with
obligations must be independent of human will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the
event that constitutes the caso fortuito or, if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
obligations in a normal manner; and, (d) the obligor must be free from any participation
in the aggravation of the injury or loss. 23

The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on him who
invokes it.24 And, in order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is
necessary that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have
occasioned the loss. 25

It has been held that an act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has
failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's
negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and injury to
another; nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or
injury was a fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability. When the effect is
found to be partly the result of a person's participation -- whether by active intervention,
neglect or failure to act -- the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the
rules applicable to acts of God. 26

Petitioner Sicam had testified that there was a security guard in their pawnshop at the
time of the robbery. He likewise testified that when he started the pawnshop business in
1983, he thought of opening a vault with the nearby bank for the purpose of safekeeping
the valuables but was discouraged by the Central Bank since pawned articles should
only be stored in a vault inside the pawnshop. The very measures which petitioners had
allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable,
but actually foreseen and anticipated. Petitioner Sicam’s testimony, in effect, contradicts
petitioners’ defense of fortuitous event.

Moreover, petitioners failed to show that they were free from any negligence by which
the loss of the pawned jewelry may have been occasioned.

Robbery per se, just like carnapping, is not a fortuitous event. It does not foreclose the
possibility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners. In Co v. Court of
Appeals,27 the Court held:

It is not a defense for a repair shop of motor vehicles to escape liability simply
because the damage or loss of a thing lawfully placed in its possession was due
to carnapping. Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortuitous
event. The fact that a thing was unlawfully and forcefully taken from
another's rightful possession, as in cases of carnapping, does not
 automatically give rise to a fortuitous event. To be considered as such,
carnapping entails more than the mere forceful taking of another's
property. It must be proved and established that the event was an act of
God or was done solely by third parties and that neither the claimant nor
the person alleged to be negligent has any participation. In accordance
with the Rules of Evidence, the burden of proving that the loss was due to
a fortuitous event rests on him who invokes it — which in this case is the
private respondent. However, other than the police report of the alleged
carnapping incident, no other evidence was presented by private respondent to
the effect that the incident was not due to its fault. A police report of an alleged
crime, to which only private respondent is privy, does not suffice to establish the
carnapping. Neither does it prove that there was no fault on the part of private
respondent notwithstanding the parties' agreement at the pre-trial that the car
was carnapped. Carnapping does not foreclose the possibility of fault or
negligence on the part of private respondent.28

Just like in Co, petitioners merely presented the police report of the Parañaque Police
Station on the robbery committed based on the report of petitioners' employees which is
not sufficient to establish robbery. Such report also does not prove that petitioners were
not at fault.

On the contrary, by the very evidence of petitioners, the CA did not err in finding that
petitioners are guilty of concurrent or contributory negligence as provided in Article 1170
of the Civil Code, to wit:

Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages.29

Article 2123 of the Civil Code provides that with regard to pawnshops and other
establishments which are engaged in making loans secured by pledges, the special
laws and regulations concerning them shall be observed, and subsidiarily, the
provisions on pledge, mortgage and antichresis.

The provision on pledge, particularly Article 2099 of the Civil Code, provides that the
creditor shall take care of the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father of a
family. This means that petitioners must take care of the pawns the way a prudent
person would as to his own property.

In this connection, Article 1173 of the Civil Code further provides:

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with
the circumstances of the persons, of time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall
apply.
 If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be
required.

We expounded in Cruz v. Gangan30 that negligence is the omission to do something

which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do; or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.31 It is want of care required by the circumstances.

A review of the records clearly shows that petitioners failed to exercise reasonable care
and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation.
Petitioners were guilty of negligence in the operation of their pawnshop business.
Petitioner Sicam testified, thus:

Court:

Q. Do you have security guards in your pawnshop?

A. Yes, your honor.

Q. Then how come that the robbers were able to enter the premises when
according to you there was a security guard?

A. Sir, if these robbers can rob a bank, how much more a pawnshop.

Q. I am asking you how were the robbers able to enter despite the fact that there
was a security guard?

A. At the time of the incident which happened about 1:00 and 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon and it happened on a Saturday and everything was quiet in the area
BF Homes Parañaque they pretended to pawn an article in the pawnshop, so
one of my employees allowed him to come in and it was only when it was
announced that it was a hold up.

Q. Did you come to know how the vault was opened?

A. When the pawnshop is official (sic) open your honor the pawnshop is partly
open. The combination is off.

Q. No one open (sic) the vault for the robbers?

A. No one your honor it was open at the time of the robbery.

Q. It is clear now that at the time of the robbery the vault was open the reason
why the robbers were able to get all the items pawned to you inside the vault.
 A. Yes sir.32

revealing that there were no security measures adopted by petitioners in the operation
of the pawnshop. Evidently, no sufficient precaution and vigilance were adopted by
petitioners to protect the pawnshop from unlawful intrusion. There was no clear showing
that there was any security guard at all. Or if there was one, that he had sufficient
training in securing a pawnshop. Further, there is no showing that the alleged security
guard exercised all that was necessary to prevent any untoward incident or to ensure
that no suspicious individuals were allowed to enter the premises. In fact, it is even
doubtful that there was a security guard, since it is quite impossible that he would not
have noticed that the robbers were armed with caliber .45 pistols each, which were
allegedly poked at the employees.33 Significantly, the alleged security guard was not
presented at all to corroborate petitioner Sicam's claim; not one of petitioners'
employees who were present during the robbery incident testified in court.

Furthermore, petitioner Sicam's admission that the vault was open at the time of robbery
is clearly a proof of petitioners' failure to observe the care, precaution and vigilance that
the circumstances justly demanded. Petitioner Sicam testified that once the pawnshop
was open, the combination was already off. Considering petitioner Sicam's testimony
that the robbery took place on a Saturday afternoon and the area in BF Homes
Parañaque at that time was quiet, there was more reason for petitioners to have
exercised reasonable foresight and diligence in protecting the pawned jewelries. Instead
of taking the precaution to protect them, they let open the vault, providing no difficulty
for the robbers to cart away the pawned articles.

We, however, do not agree with the CA when it found petitioners negligent for not taking
steps to insure themselves against loss of the pawned jewelries.

Under Section 17 of Central Bank Circular No. 374, Rules and Regulations for
Pawnshops, which took effect on July 13, 1973, and which was issued pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 114, Pawnshop Regulation Act, it is provided that pawns
pledged must be insured, to wit:

Sec. 17. Insurance of Office Building and Pawns- The place of business of a
pawnshop and the pawns pledged to it must be insured against fire and against
burglary as well as for the latter(sic), by an insurance company accredited by
the Insurance Commissioner.

However, this Section was subsequently amended by CB Circular No. 764 which took
effect on October 1, 1980, to wit:

Sec. 17 Insurance of Office Building and Pawns – The office building/premises

and pawns of a pawnshop must be insured against fire. (emphasis supplied).
where the requirement that insurance against burglary was deleted. Obviously, the
Central Bank considered it not feasible to require insurance of pawned articles against
burglary.

The robbery in the pawnshop happened in 1987, and considering the above-quoted
amendment, there is no statutory duty imposed on petitioners to insure the pawned
jewelry in which case it was error for the CA to consider it as a factor in concluding that
petitioners were negligent.

Nevertheless, the preponderance of evidence shows that petitioners failed to exercise

the diligence required of them under the Civil Code.

The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his
conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance
of the act which he is to perform.34 Thus, the cases of Austria v. Court of
Appeals,35 Hernandez v. Chairman, Commission on Audit36 and Cruz v. Gangan37 cited
by petitioners in their pleadings, where the victims of robbery were exonerated from
liability, find no application to the present case.

In Austria, Maria Abad received from Guillermo Austria a pendant with diamonds to be
sold on commission basis, but which Abad failed to subsequently return because of a
robbery committed upon her in 1961. The incident became the subject of a criminal
case filed against several persons. Austria filed an action against Abad and her
husband (Abads) for recovery of the pendant or its value, but the Abads set up the
defense that the robbery extinguished their obligation. The RTC ruled in favor of Austria,
as the Abads failed to prove robbery; or, if committed, that Maria Abad was guilty of
negligence. The CA, however, reversed the RTC decision holding that the fact of
robbery was duly established and declared the Abads not responsible for the loss of the
jewelry on account of a fortuitous event. We held that for the Abads to be relieved from
the civil liability of returning the pendant under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, it would only
be sufficient that the unforeseen event, the robbery, took place without any concurrent
fault on the debtor’s part, and this can be done by preponderance of evidence; that to
be free from liability for reason of fortuitous event, the debtor must, in addition to the
casus itself, be free of any concurrent or contributory fault or negligence.38

We found in Austria that under the circumstances prevailing at the time the Decision
was promulgated in 1971, the City of Manila and its suburbs had a high incidence of
crimes against persons and property that rendered travel after nightfall a matter to be
sedulously avoided without suitable precaution and protection; that the conduct of Maria
Abad in returning alone to her house in the evening carrying jewelry of considerable
value would have been negligence per se and would not exempt her from responsibility
in the case of robbery. However we did not hold Abad liable for negligence since, the
robbery happened ten years previously; i.e., 1961, when criminality had not reached the
level of incidence obtaining in 1971.
In contrast, the robbery in this case took place in 1987 when robbery was already
prevalent and petitioners in fact had already foreseen it as they wanted to deposit the
pawn with a nearby bank for safekeeping. Moreover, unlike in Austria, where no
negligence was committed, we found petitioners negligent in securing their pawnshop
as earlier discussed.

In Hernandez, Teodoro Hernandez was the OIC and special disbursing officer of the
Ternate Beach Project of the Philippine Tourism in Cavite. In the morning of July 1,
1983, a Friday, he went to Manila to encash two checks covering the wages of the
employees and the operating expenses of the project. However for some reason, the
processing of the check was delayed and was completed at about 3 p.m. Nevertheless,
he decided to encash the check because the project employees would be waiting for
their pay the following day; otherwise, the workers would have to wait until July 5, the
earliest time, when the main office would open. At that time, he had two choices: (1)
return to Ternate, Cavite that same afternoon and arrive early evening; or (2) take the
money with him to his house in Marilao, Bulacan, spend the night there, and leave for
Ternate the following day. He chose the second option, thinking it was the safer one.
Thus, a little past 3 p.m., he took a passenger jeep bound for Bulacan. While the jeep
was on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, the jeep was held up and the money kept by
Hernandez was taken, and the robbers jumped out of the jeep and ran. Hernandez
chased the robbers and caught up with one robber who was subsequently charged with
robbery and pleaded guilty. The other robber who held the stolen money escaped. The
Commission on Audit found Hernandez negligent because he had not brought the cash
proceeds of the checks to his office in Ternate, Cavite for safekeeping, which is the
normal procedure in the handling of funds. We held that Hernandez was not negligent in
deciding to encash the check and bringing it home to Marilao, Bulacan instead of
Ternate, Cavite due to the lateness of the hour for the following reasons: (1) he was
moved by unselfish motive for his co-employees to collect their wages and salaries the
following day, a Saturday, a non-working, because to encash the check on July 5, the
next working day after July 1, would have caused discomfort to laborers who were
dependent on their wages for sustenance; and (2) that choosing Marilao as a safer
destination, being nearer, and in view of the comparative hazards in the trips to the two
places, said decision seemed logical at that time. We further held that the fact that two
robbers attacked him in broad daylight in the jeep while it was on a busy highway and in
the presence of other passengers could not be said to be a result of his imprudence and
negligence.

Unlike in Hernandez where the robbery happened in a public utility, the robbery in this
case took place in the pawnshop which is under the control of petitioners. Petitioners
had the means to screen the persons who were allowed entrance to the premises and
to protect itself from unlawful intrusion. Petitioners had failed to exercise precautionary
measures in ensuring that the robbers were prevented from entering the pawnshop and
for keeping the vault open for the day, which paved the way for the robbers to easily
cart away the pawned articles.
In Cruz, Dr. Filonila O. Cruz, Camanava District Director of Technological Education
and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), boarded the Light Rail Transit (LRT) from
Sen. Puyat Avenue to Monumento when her handbag was slashed and the contents
were stolen by an unidentified person. Among those stolen were her wallet and the
government-issued cellular phone. She then reported the incident to the police
authorities; however, the thief was not located, and the cellphone was not recovered.
She also reported the loss to the Regional Director of TESDA, and she requested that
she be freed from accountability for the cellphone. The Resident Auditor denied her
request on the ground that she lacked the diligence required in the custody of
government property and was ordered to pay the purchase value in the total amount
of P4,238.00. The COA found no sufficient justification to grant the request for relief
from accountability. We reversed the ruling and found that riding the LRT cannot per se
be denounced as a negligent act more so because Cruz’s mode of transit was
influenced by time and money considerations; that she boarded the LRT to be able to
arrive in Caloocan in time for her 3 pm meeting; that any prudent and rational person
under similar circumstance can reasonably be expected to do the same; that
possession of a cellphone should not hinder one from boarding the LRT coach as Cruz
did considering that whether she rode a jeep or bus, the risk of theft would have also
been present; that because of her relatively low position and pay, she was not expected
to have her own vehicle or to ride a taxicab; she did not have a government assigned
vehicle; that placing the cellphone in a bag away from covetous eyes and holding on to
that bag as she did is ordinarily sufficient care of a cellphone while traveling on board
the LRT; that the records did not show any specific act of negligence on her part and
negligence can never be presumed.

Unlike in the Cruz case, the robbery in this case happened in petitioners' pawnshop and
they were negligent in not exercising the precautions justly demanded of a pawnshop.

WHEREFORE, except for the insurance aspect, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated March 31, 2003 and its Resolution dated August 8, 2003, are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, JJ., concur.