AUSTRIA v CA

39 SCRA 527

Facts
Maria Abad received from Guillermo Austria a pendant encrusted with diamonds to be
sold on commission or to be returned on demand. On her way home she was
confronted with two men who robbed her of the pendant and her personal jewelry. Since
Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay and/or pay for its value, Austria filed a case
against her and her husband for recovery of the pendant or of its value and damages.
The spouses set up the defense that the robbery extinguished their obligation to Austria.

The trial court ordered the spouses to jointly and severally pay Austria. This was
reversed by the Court of Appeals where it ruled that the spouses are not responsible for
the loss of the pendant. The case against the robbers is still ongoing and nobody has
been found guilty yet.

Issue
Whether in a contract of agency it is necessary that there be prior conviction for
robbery before the loss of the article shall exempt the consignee from liability for such
loss.

Held
No, it is not necessary that there be prior conviction for robbery to exempt consignee
from liability.

Article 1174 states that: Except in cases expressly specified by 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.

To avail of the exemption granted in Article 1174, it is not necessary that the persons
responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished. It is sufficient that the
enforceable event, which is the robbery, did take place without any concurrent fault on
the debtor's part and this can be done by preponderant evidence.