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.:

FACTS:

 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.

 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 RTC further ruled that petitioner cannot be held liable on the grounds of fortuitous
events because of the robbery incident., The CA reversed the RTC decision.

 Furthermore, petitioner Roberto Sicam testified that at the time of the robbery the vault was
already open, thus the robbers were able to get all the things pawned.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner assertion that he should not be liable on the grounds of fortuitous events
would prosper.

RULING:

Petitioner can be held liable despite the plea of fortuitous events. The Court ruled that in order the
petitioner be absolved from civil liability on the grounds of fortuitous events it must be proved and
established that the event was an act of God or an act SOLELY attributable to a 3rd person and that
neither the petitioner nor the respondent took participation therein. In the case at bar, the testimony
of petitioner run afoul to his defense of fortuitous events because at the time of the robbery the vault
was already open which expedite the illegal conduct of the robbers, therefore his plea of fortuitous
events should not prosper. Furthermore, fortuitous events should be established that it is impossible
to foresee or if it is possible to foresee it is impossible to avoid. Robbery is possible to foresee
considering the crime rate of that particular time during the robbery took place but the petitioner fails
to foresee thus wanting diligence.

NOTE:

Requisites for Fortuitous Events:

(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; (Fortuitous Events and Failure
to comply the obligation 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; ( Impossible to foresee or if it can be foressen it
is 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, (Fortuitous events makes the debtor impossible to fulfill his
obligation)

(d) the obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss.
( Obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss)