C - Fortuitous Events

Question 1

Fortuitous Events

Art. 1174

Answer 1

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

Question 2

(ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FORTUITOUS EVENT)

Answer 2

1. The cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor;
2. The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
3. The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;
4. 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.

Question 3

why is obligor not liable?

page 71 in book

Answer 3

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

Question 4

In case of a debtor in default, he is already considered at fault and therefore cannot avail of FE.

Question 5

What are the exceptions of Fortuitous Events?

Answer 5

1. Law (1165/70 - default)
2. Stipulation (despite FE, there will still be liability) -
3. 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

4. Generic things do not apply

Question 6

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

Answer 6

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

Question 7

There is DOAR as plaintiff (Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring

DOAR as defendant (Abrogat v Cosmos

Question 8

Other terms for FE?

Answer 8

• force majeure
• acts of God
• caso fortuito

Question 9

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

Question 10

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

Answer 10

1. independent of the human will
2. impossible to foresee, impossible to avoid
3. occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal behavior
4. debtor must free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury - (

this the shorten version

Question 11

in the case of Mindex Resources,

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/mindex-resources-development-v-morillo?q=Mindex

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

EXAMPLES OF FE

Answer 12

1. by nature
   earthquake
2. act of man
   bandits, governmental prohibition (ex. quarantine you had to deliver determinate perishable goods)

Question 13

is tire blowout a FE in the case of Uberdo v. CA? (found in canva)

Answer 13

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

Question 14

What kind of robbery to invoke FE?

Answer 14

Robbery where it is indeed unforeseen

Question 15

Austrai v. ca

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Mindex is liable why?

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

Instances of NO FE

Lasam - defective breaks,

Ubedo v. Court of Appeals (found in the presentation)

Question 18

mechanical defect in video tape recorder (herbosa v CA)

Answer 18

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

Question 19

example of rebus sic stantibus

Answer 19

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

Question 20

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

Answer 20

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)

Question 21

in the case of Sps Poon v PSB (take note on this)

Answer 21

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

Question 22

REVIEW

Answer 22

REVIEW

Question 23

importance in the distinction of fortuitous events of ordinary and extraordinary?

Answer 23

ordinary fortuitous events - does not extinguish liability

Question 24

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?

Answer 24

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]

Question 25

174 [ 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]

insofar as FE not availed when expressed in law, give example

Answer 25

when debtor is in dfn or contravention of the tenor (1165, he is responsible for FE
- when doubter commits double sale, he is responsible for FE

Question 26

LIABILITY IN CASE OF FORTUITOUS EVENTS

Answer 26

LIABILITY IN CASE OF FORTUITOUS EVENTS

Question 27

paramets
1. FE = exoneration
2. N resulting to FE = liability
3. N + FE, but even without the N, the FE would still occuer = equitably mitigate but not exonerating

Question 28

The debtor is responsible for Fortuitous Events when expressly declared by law. Cite these laws

Answer 28

1. 552 - possessor is in bad faith
2. 1165 - possessor in default
3. 1268 - debt arises from a criminal offense
4. 1263 - delivery of the generic thing applies inspite of FE (genus nunquam perit)

Question 29

Art. 1268

Answer 29

When the debt of a thing certain and determinate proceeds from a criminal offense, the debtor shall not be exempted from the payment of its price, whatever may be the cause for the loss, unless the thing having been offered by him to the person who should receive it, the latter refused without justification to accept it

• where a debt arises from a criminal offense. It states that if the debt involves a specific and determinate object, the debtor cannot avoid paying it, regardless of any loss suffered due to fortuitous events. The debtor remains liable to pay the price of the object, unless they can prove that they offered the object to the creditor for acceptance, and the creditor unjustifiably refused to accept it.

[ex]
Let’s say John owes Mary a specific and determinate painting, which is the subject of a criminal offense (such as theft). Despite the painting being stolen from John’s possession due to a burglary (a fortuitous event), John is still obligated to pay Mary the price of the painting unless he can demonstrate that he offered the painting to Mary for acceptance, and she unreasonably refused to accept it back. If John cannot prove such an offer and refusal, he remains liable for the debt owed to Mary for the painting, even though it was lost due to a criminal act.

Question 30

will the mere occurence of a FE warrant the exoneration of the obgliation?

Answer 30

“Impossibility of performance must result from occurrence of fortuitous event.”

No, the FE must be the proximate cause as to the impossibility of the fulfilment of an obligation.

Question 31

(ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FORTUITOUS EVENT)

Answer 31

1. The cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor;
2. The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
3. The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;
4. 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.

Question 32

robbery is a FE, . To avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not necessary that the persons responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished.

for FE, it is based on the events not on the agents or factors responsible for them.

Answer 32

2. Typhoon. Where it wasn’t established by clear evidence by plaintiff that the school building’s structure was really defective (Southwestern College, Inc. vs. CA)
3. Burning of thing by unidentified person (Mindex Resources vs. Morillo)

Question 33

Sps Poon v PSB (Prime Savings Bank)

PSB argued that Insolvency is a FE. Decide

Answer 33

1. No, it does not satisfy the element of FE.
   - could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable
2. part of their stipulation is the phrase “In case of insolvency” which means it was foreseeable
3. The event was not independent of PSB but by fraudulent acts
4. 1267 does not apply as it contemplates SERVICE not payment

Question 34

Art 1267

Answer 34

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. (Sps. Poon v. PSB)

Question 35

latin principle of 1267

Answer 35

‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’

Question 36

What is the relevancy of 1267 insofar as FE is concerned?

Answer 36

• One of the exceptions of Pacta Sunt Servanda (Agreements shall be complied with in good faith) [treaties]
• If there is a supervening event that radically transformed the obligation sought to be performed
• Render the performance of the obligation too burdensome. exempt from performance of obligation