Jimmy Co. vs CA On July 18, 1990, petitioner entrusted his Nissan pickup car 1988 model!1" to private respondent #hich is en$a$ed in the sale, distri%ution and repair o& motor vehicles &or the &ollo#in$ 'o% repair services and supply o& parts:
Facts :
(rivate respondent undertook to return the vehicle on July )1, 1990 &ully serviced and supplied in accordance #ith the 'o% contract. A&ter petitioner paid in &ull the repair %ill in the amount o&(1,*9+.00,!*" private respondent issued to him a $ate pass &or the release o& the vehicle on said date. ut came July )1, 1990, the latter could not release the vehicle as its %attery #as #eak and #as not yet replaced. -e&t #ith no option, petitioner himsel& %ou$ht a ne# %attery near%y and delivered it to private respondent &or installation on the same day. o#ever, the %attery #as not installed and the delivery o& the car #as rescheduled to July )/, 1990 or three * days later. 2hen petitioner sou$ht to reclaim his car in the a&ternoon o& July )/, 1990, he #as told that it #as carnapped carnapped earlier earlier that mornin$ #hile %ein$ roadtested roadtested %y private private respondent3 respondent3ss employee alon$ (edro 4il and (ere5 6treets in (aco, 7anila. (rivate respondent said that the incident #as reported to the police. avin$ &ailed to recover his car c ar and its accessories or the value thereo&, petitioner &iled a suit &or dama$es a$ainst private respondent anchorin$ his claim on the latter3s alle$ed ne$li$ence. or its part, private respondent contended that it has no lia%ility %ecause the car #as lost as a result o& a &ortuitous event the carnappin$. Issue:
hey like#ise a$reed that the sole issue &or trial #as #ho %et#een the parties shall %ear the loss o& the vehicle #hich necessitates the resolution o& #hether private respondent #as indeed ne$li$ent. Decision :
On the merits. t is a not a de&ense &or a repair shop o& motor vehicles to escape lia%ility simply %ecause the dama$e or loss o& a thin$ la#&ully placed in its possession #as due to carnappin$. Carnappin$ per Carnappin$ per se cannot se cannot %e considered as a &ortuitous event. he &act that a thin$ #as #as unla unla#& #&ul ully ly and &orc &orce& e&ul ully ly taken taken &rom &rom anoth another3 er3ss ri$ht ri$ht&u &ull poss posses essi sion on,, as in case casess o& carnappin$, does not automatically $ive rise to a &ortuitous event. o %e considered as such, carnappin$ entails more than the mere &orce&ul takin$ o& another3s property. t must %e proved and esta%lished that the event #as an act o& 4od or #as done solely %y third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alle$ed to %e ne$li$ent has any participation.!9" n accordance #ith the ;ules o& evidence, the %urden o& provin$ that the loss #as due to a &ortuitous event rests on him #ho invokes it!10" #hich in this case is the private respondent. o#ever, other than the police report o& the alle$ed carnappin$ incident, no other evidence #as presented %y private respondent to the e&&ect that the incident #as not due to its &ault. A police report o& an alle$ed crime, to #hich only private respondent is privy, does not su&&ice to esta%lished the carnappin$.
Neither does it prove that there #as no &ault on the part o& private respondent not#ithstandin$ the parties3 a$reement at the pretrial that the car #as carnapped. Carnappin$ does not &oreclose the possi%ility o& &ault or ne$li$ence on the part o& private respondent. !11" o& the Ne# Civil Code makes an o%li$or #ho is $uilty o& delay responsi%le even &or a &ortuitous event until he has e&&ected the delivery. n this case, private respondent #as already in delay as it #as supposed to deliver petitioner3s car three * days %e&ore it #as lost. (etitioner3s a$reement to the rescheduled delivery does not de&eat his claim as private respondent had already %reached its o%li$ation. 7oreover, such accession cannot %e construed as #aiver o& petitioner3s ri$ht to hold private respondent lia%le %ecause the car #as unusa%le and thus, petitioner had no option %ut to leave it. Assumin$ &urther that there #as no delay, still #orkin$ a$ainst private respondent is the le$al presumption under Article 1)=> that its possession o& the thin$ at the time it #as lost #as due to its &ault.!1)" his presumption is reasona%le since he #ho ha s the custody and care o& the thin$ can easily e?plain the circumstances o& the loss. he vehicle o#ner has no duty to sho# that the repair shop #as at &ault. All that petitioner needs to prove, as claimant, is the simple &act that private respondent #as in possession o& the vehicle at the time it #as lost. n this case, private respondent3s possession at the time o& the loss is undisputed. Conse@uently, the %urden shi&ts to the possessor #ho needs to present controvertin$ evidence su&&icient enou$h to overcome that presumption. 7oreover, the e?emptin$ circumstances earth@uake, &lood, storm or other natural calamity #hen the presumption o& &ault is not applica%le!1*" do not concur in this case. Accordin$ly, havin$ &ailed to re%ut the presumption and since the case does not &all under the e?ceptions, private respondent is ans#era%le &or the loss.
