You are on page 1of 2

Dioquino vs. Laureano | G.R. No. L-25906 | May 28, 1970 | Ponente: Fernando, J.

Nature of Case: Liability on fortuitious events
Plaintiff(s): Pedro D. Dioquino
Defendant(s): Federico Laureano, Aida de Laureano, Juanito Laureano

SUMMARY: While Federico Laureano was using the car owned by Atty. Dioquino, some ‘mischievous boys’ stoned the
car which resulted to a broken windshield. Although the car was driven by the plaintiff’s driver, Laureano being only a
passenger, Dioquino proceeded against Laureano to claim damages. Plaintiff also included Laureano’s wife and father in
the suit filed. Lower court ruled for Dioquino, while dismissing the suit filed against the defendant’s wife and father.
Supreme Court granted Laureano’s appeal because the case falls within the definition of a fortuitous event, making
defendant not liable.

FACTS
• Atty. Dioquino, a practicing lawyer of Masbate, owns the car
• Dioquino went to the office of the MVO, Masbate to have his car registered
• Plaintiff met defendant Federico Laureano, a patrol officer of said MVO office, who was waiting for a jeepney to take him
to the office of the Provincial Commander (P.C.), Masbate
- Dioqunio requested defendant to introduce him to one of the clerks in the MVO offive who could facilitate the
registration of his car
• Laureano rode on the car of Dioquino on his way to P.C. Barracks
- car, driven by Dioquino’s river and with Laureano as the sole passenger, was stoned by some ‘mischievous boys’
—> windshield was broken
• Laureano was only able to catch one of the boys
- boy admitted to having thrown the stone
- the father of the boy was called but no satisfactory arrangements were made about the damage to the windshield
• Laureano refused to file charges against the boy and his parents believing that the stone-throwing was merely
accidental and that it was due to force majeure
- defendant Laureano also refused to pay the windshield himself
• Plaintiff now holds defendant Federico Laureano accountable for the loss sustained
- also included in the action filed were the defendant’s wife, Aida Laureano, and his father, Juanito Laureano
• Lower court granted plaintiff’s action for damages but absolved defendant’s wife and father of any responsibility
• all 3 Laureanos’ appealed, raising the following:
1. lower court failed to dismiss such a suit as no liability could have been incurred as a result of fortuitous event
2. lower court failed to award damages against plaintiff for the unwarranted inclusion of the wife and the father in this
litigation

ISSUE(S) + RULING
1. WON the lower court erred in not dismissing the suit against Laureano — YES
• Art. 1174, Civil Code: "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.”
• In obligations arising from contract that some extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the obligor, or
of his employees —> essential element in fortuitous events
- if the above situation happens, there is no liability
- the law does not require diligence beyond what human are and foresight can provide

1 of 2

though foreseen. according to him. or which. WON damages could be awarded for the unwarranted inclusion of defendant’s wife and father in the litigation — NO • Plaintiif included the wife and the father because. events that could not be foreseen. were inevitable (must be impossible to foresee or to avoid) • What happened to the car was clearly unforeseen — it was a fortuitous event resulting in a loss which must be borne by the owner of the car 2. court feels that he is not to be penalized further by his mistaken view of the law in including them in his complaint Decision of lower court REVERSED.• Caso fortuito or force majeure are extraordinary events not forseeable or avoidable. the father was the administrator of the inheritance of an undivided property to which defendant could lay claim and the wife for the conjugal partnership would be made to respond for whatever liability would be adjudicated against the husband • Plaintiff was merely propmted by the desire to inflict needless and unjustified vexation on them (wife and father) • Since plaintiff already suffered a pecuniary loss which was the result of a fortuitous event (would have not occured if defendent Laureano had not borrowed his car). 2 of 2 .