C - Fortuitous Events Flashcards
Fortuitous Events
Art. 1174
Except in cases expressly provided in law, stipulation, or the assumption of risk a person shall not be responsible for events that are unforeseeable, or which foreseeable, are inevitable
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
(ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FORTUITOUS EVENT)
- The cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor;
- The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
- The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;
- The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor. An ACT OF GOD is an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains of care, reasonably to have been expected, could have prevented.
why is obligor not liable?
page 71 in book
GEN: obligation is extinguished (obligation involving determinate thing)
Being determinate, is not capable of replacement.
What must concur for it to be extinguished is not just the actual event, but also ABSENCE OF PARTICPATION/CONTRIBUTION either by (a) act or (b) omission by the debtor
In case of a debtor in default, he is already considered at fault and therefore cannot avail of FE.
What are the exceptions of Fortuitous Events?
- Law (1165/70 - default)
- Stipulation (despite FE, there will still be liability) -
- Nature of Obligation Requires Assumption of Risk (Doctrine of Created Risk) - Earthquake, although a an act of God, created a liability to the insurance company
Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring illustrates Doctrine of Created Risk
- Generic things do not apply
Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring illustrates Doctrine of Created Risk on part of the defendant
usually a principle applicable to the plaintiff and this doctrine is a defense on part of the defendant.
Abrogar v. Pusmos March 15, 2017
the parents of the marathoner who died sued organize because of negligence. They argued that he was hit by a vehicle, he did not die because of a heart attack/stroke. Even if those are not concerns in the form, the court applied doctrine of assumption of risk that’s why there is a form to be filled up which
Ex. Being a Boxer, you cannot sue the organizer or your heirs if you die as a result of a boxing event
There is DOAR as plaintiff (Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring
DOAR as defendant (Abrogat v Cosmos
Other terms for FE?
- force majeure
- acts of God
- caso fortuito
If there is an act or omission on part of the defendant, he is not allowed to invoke FE because the whole occurrence is humanized and is removed from the concept/notion of FE.
The moment there is an act/omission on part of the defendant, even if the event is NOT foreseeable, it becoms Humanized and removes the concept of FE
Lasam v. Smith & Tanguilig v. CA
both involve the discussion whether defendant could avail of FE, the supreme court consistently outlined the elements, which are
- independent of the human will
- impossible to foresee, impossible to avoid
- occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal behavior
- debtor must free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury - (
this the shorten version
in the case of Mindex Resources,
https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/mindex-resources-development-v-morillo?q=Mindex
leaving the truck
it wasn’t impossible to ask for assistance from other employees to keep on manning the truck so that it will not be damaged/burnt by the unidentified person
the event where an unidenfitied burning the truck is unforeseeable. (FE also includes act of man; rebellion, war, government)
EXAMPLES OF FE
- by nature
earthquake - act of man
bandits, governmental prohibition (ex. quarantine you had to deliver determinate perishable goods)
is tire blowout a FE in the case of Uberdo v. CA? (found in canva)
WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED
1. it involves brand new tires for 5 days old yet it exploded.
2. it was from the Good Year
what was NOT established
1. won it was properly installed
2. testimony of the driver won he was running in a moderate speed which was debunked by the passenger claiming the driver was running very fast and they admonish the driver to slow down.
3. tire pressure; has the owner of the vehicle follow the recommended tire pressure?
4. and many others
tire explosion/tire blowout is considered as defect of vehicles
this case , the car was a common courier
What kind of robbery to invoke FE?
Robbery where it is indeed unforeseen
Austrai v. ca
austria’s instruction was for a Aband will sell pendant for commission.
Abad was robbed at night, he claimed his obligation was extinguished was because the robbery that took place was unforeseeable
The court accepted robbery as a FE, because at the time of the incidence, it took place on 1961 with low robbery rates unlike 1971 incidence of robbery was high in the city of manila so for 1961, it is unforeseeable
EX. wherever you are right now and you are obliged to deliver to your creditor and you walk on the street of Colon or Sanciangko around this time, incidence of robbery is foreseeable. But if you experience robbery inside Talamaban campus but it is very unlikely.
Or the robbery took place in front of the police station which is unforeseeable
ROBBERY IS IT’S A CASE TO CASE BASIS
the determinant is other circumstances (location, time, statistics) WON it is FORESEEABLE
Mindex is liable why?
there was failure to exercise due diligence in making sure the truck that was leased to avoid the incident from happening
but burning of thing coupled with lack of fault could be a FE (similar to robbery)
Instances of NO FE
Lasam - defective breaks,
Ubedo v. Court of Appeals (found in the presentation)
mechanical defect in video tape recorder (herbosa v CA)
they had opportunity to avoid the harm (2 hours they knew about the defect, the office was relatively near fro m the wedding venue) but failed to exercise diligence in order to fulfill the obligation–not independent of human will
example of rebus sic stantibus
ex. treaty
state A grant navigation rights to state B. In the river traversing state A and B, B needs the river to get to the sea thus for the navigation rights
suppose the river dries up by natural cause, may state B insist it be allowed to pass through the dried river using vehicles and not vessels contending that the treaty still continues and therefore grant them right of passage.
treaty provides navgiation rights
here there is a change that was NOT foreseeable before entered into the treaty. same thing with contract.
here there is extreme difficfult in performing their part, therefore, the obligor can be released in whole or in part
1267 typically applies on personal obligations( to do or not to do) but lately it has applied to real obligations (involving lease) and it was applied
take note of this case. Sps. Poon v. Prime Savings Bank
art 1267 or Rebus Sic Stantibus “When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part”
meaning fundamental change in circumstance
there is reason for obligor IN PART or IN WHOLE from the obligation when the service has become to difficult as to be annifestyly (1267)
in the case of Sps Poon v PSB (take note on this)
when bank is under receivership/liquidated proceedings, they are bankrupt or insolvent and its being tried be revived thus being its operations and assets to be managed.
so PSB can’t pay sps. the payment of rentals because it was under receivership by the gov’t BUT
the court ruled that FE and rebus sic stantibus (RSS) requires the element of UNFORESEEABILITY
during the cross examination, the manager admitted that when it entered into the contract, the event or change in circumstance could not be foreseen at the time of the EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT.
there was no proof putting PSB was arbitrary
REVIEW
REVIEW
importance in the distinction of fortuitous events of ordinary and extraordinary?
ordinary fortuitous events - does not extinguish liability
LuzonStevedoringCorp v. R
- their defense is that they prepared for something foreseeable but to avail of FE, events [could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevitable] so the fact that they had foreseen disqualifies them from invoking FE?
because there was an assumed risk, they cannot invoke FE
FRUTHER, the fact that the danger was foreseeable disqualifies the invocation of FE as defined 1174 [ 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 inevitabl]
