5. FORTUITIOUS EVENT: GOTESCO v.

CHATTO

FACTS:
 Respondents went to Superama theater owned by petitioner Gotesco to see a movie.
 Few minutes after entering the theatre, the ceiling collapsed which resulted to the injuries of the
respondents.
 Consequently, respondents were confined at the FEU Hospital and was subsequently transferred to UST.
 However, due to continuing headache and pain in the neck, respondent flew to Illinois, USA for further
treatment which lasted for three months.
 Petitioner: Collapse of the ceiling was due to force majeure. It further claimed that its theater was free from
any structural or construction defect.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner Gotesco is liable.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner's claim that the collapse of the ceiling of the theater's balcony was due to force majeure is not
even founded on facts because its own witness, Mr. Jesus Lim Ong, admitted that "he could not give any reason why
the ceiling collapsed." Having interposed it as a defense, it had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed
caused by force majeure. It could not have collapsed without a cause. That Mr. Ong could not offer any explanation
does not imply force majeure.
Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that, as petitioner vigorously insists, the cause of the collapse was
due to force majeure, petitioner would still be liable because it was guilty of negligence, which the trial court
denominated as gross.