Co v CA
GR No. 124922, 22 June 1998
Martinez, J.:
FACTS:
On July 18, 1990, petitioner entrusted his Nissan pick-up car 1988 model to private respondent for some repair including battery replacement, the latter undertaking to return the vehicle on July 21, 1990 fully serviced and supplied in accordance with the job contract. But came July 21, 1990, the latter could not release the vehicle as its battery was weak and was not yet replaced. Left with no option, petitioner himself bought a new battery nearby and delivered it to private respondent for installation on the same day. However, the battery was not installed and the delivery of the car was rescheduled to July 24, 1990. When petitioner sought to reclaim his car in the afternoon of July 24, 1990, he was told that it was carnapped earlier that morning while being road-tested by an employee of private respondent. Private respondent contended that it has no liability because the car was lost as a result of a fortuitous event — the carnapping. The RTC, in a suit for damages filed by petitioner against private respondent, found the latter guilty of delay in the performance of its obligation and held it liable to petitioner for the value of the lost vehicle and its accessories plus interest and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling. It ruled that the vehicle was lost due to a fortuitous event.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is liable for the loss of a petitioner's vehicle while the same is in its custody for repair or other job services.
HELD:
Yes. It is a 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. 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. 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. Said report does not 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. Even assuming arguendo that carnapping was duly established as a fortuitous event, still private respondent cannot escape liability. Article 1165 of the New Civil Code makes an obligor who is guilty of delay responsible even for a fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery. In this case, private respondent was already in delay as it was supposed to deliver petitioner's car 3 days before it was lost. Petitioner's agreement to the rescheduled delivery does not defeat his claim as private respondent had already breached its obligation. Moreover, such occasion cannot be construed as waiver of petitioner's right to hold private respondent liable because the car was unusable and thus, petitioner had no option but to leave it.
