Case Digest by Ainna Fathi

Case: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v. Gregorio de la Peña (26 PHIL. 144), Nov. 21,
1913

PETITIONER-APPELLEE: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Gregorio de la Peña (administrator of the
estate of Father Agustin de la Peña

PONENTE: Moreland, J.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro brought action against the appellant,
Gregorio de la Peña, who was the administrator of the property of the
deceased Fr. Agustin de la Peña (deceased- 1900), to recover the sum of
P6,641 (Mexican currency) in the Court of First Instance in Iloilo.

The amount of money in question, was collected by the deceased priest, as an

authorized representative to collect fees for the construction of a leper
hospital. The appellee was a trustee of such charitable bequest. The same
amount was deposited, along with Fr. de la Peña’s personal funds, in the Hong
Kong and Shanghai Bank of Iloilo.

During the war of the revolution, Fr. de la Peña was arrested by the military
authorities as a political prisoner. His bank funds were confiscated as the
military authorities thought that the funds were for revolutionary purposes.

The CFI of Iloilo awarded the plaintiff P6,641 with interest at the legal rate
from the beginning of action, thus this appeal.
FACTS

Whether Father de la Peña is liable for the loss of the bequest money by
ISSUE/S placing it in his personal bank account?

Article 1094 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): A person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good
father of a family.
Article 1163 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): Every person obliged
LAWS to give something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of
 a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties
requires another standard of care. (1094a)

Article 1105 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): No one shall be liable for
events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were
inevitable,

with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in
which the obligation so declares

Article 1174 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): 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. (1105a)

No. Fr. de la Peña and his trustee (or estate administrator), Gregorio de la
Peña is not liable for the loss of the bequest money.
Fr. de la Peña’s liability is determined by portions in the Civil Code that relate
to obligations (Book 4, Title 1.) and the New Civil Code (Book 4, Title 1.)

Although Article 1094 of the Civil Code, now, Article 1163 (The New Civil
Code) discusses that “a person obliged to give something is also bound to
preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family”, it also
states that “no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or
which having been

foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned
in the law or those in which the obligation so declares (Article 1105, the Civil
Code and Article 1174, The New Civil Code).

The precise question is not about negligence as we cannot measure nor say if
Fr. de la Peña was indeed negligent by depositing the donated funds in his
bank. We cannot also do the same if he just left the funds in his home or if he
deposited the amount in a separate account as a trustee. No law prohibited him
from depositing the amount as he did and no law changed his responsibility
because of that act. While one who is under obligation to give a thing is
obliged, when he foresees events which may be dangerous to his trust, to
HOLDINGS exhaust all means and measures to elude or, if unavoidable, to mitigate the
effects of those events, the Supreme Court held that in choosing between two
means equally legal, with two possible same repercussions, making him
negligent in selecting either, Fr. de la Peña was not responsible for the loss of
the amount in question.

The judgment was reversed.