G.R. No.

107968 October 30, 1996

ELIAS S. CIPRIANO and/or E.S. CIPRIANO ENTERPRISES, petitioner,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and MACLIN ELECTRONICS, INC., respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Elias S. Cipriano is the owner of E.S. Cipriano Enterprises, which is engaged in the
rustproofing of vehicles.

Private respondent brought his car to petitioner's shop for rustproofing. According to the petitioner,
the car was brought to his shop at 10 o'clock in the morning of April 30, 1991 and was ready for
release later that afternoon, as it took only six hours to complete the process of rustproofing.

In the afternoon of May 1, 1991, fire broke out at the adjacent restaurant. The fire destroyed both the
shop and the restaurant, including private respondent's car. The car had been kept inside the
building, allegedly to protect it from theft. Petitioner claimed that despite efforts to save the vehicle,
there was simply not enough time to get it out

Private respondent sent a letter to petitioner, demanding reimbursement. In reply, petitioner denied
liability on the ground that the fire was a fortuitous event.

Private respondent alleged that its vehicle was lost due to the negligence and imprudence of the
petitioner, citing petitioner's failure to register his business with the Department of Trade and
Industry under P.D. No. 1572 and to insure it as required in the rules implementing the Decree. 

Petitioner invoked Art. 1174 of the Civil Code and denied liability for the loss which he alleged was
due to fortuitous event. He later testified that he employed an electrician who regularly inspected the
lighting in his restaurant and rustproofing shop. He further averred that private respondent's car was
ready for release as early as afternoon of April 30, 1991 and that it was private respondent's delay in
claiming it that was the cause of the loss. He also claimed that he was not required to register his
business with the Department of Trade and Industry, because he was not covered by P.D. No. 1572.

The trial court sustained the private respondent's contention that the failure of defendant to comply
with P.D. No. 1572 is in effect a manifest act of negligence which renders him liable for the loss of
the car even if the same was caused by fire.

The Court of Appeals held that by virtue of the provisions of P.D. No. 1572 and its implementing
rules and regulations which require fire insurance coverage prior to accreditation, owners of service
and repair enterprises assume the risk of loss of their customer's property.

Issue: whether petitioner was required to insure his business and the vehicles received by him in the
course of his business and, if so, whether his failure to do so constituted negligence, rendering him
liable for loss due to the risk required to be insured against

Held:

YES. We have already held that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se.
In F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,   we held the owner of a furniture shop liable for the
9

destruction of the plaintiff's house in a fire which started in his establishment in view of his failure to
comply with an ordinance which required the construction of a firewall. In Teague v. Fernandez,   we 10
stated that where the very injury which was intended to be prevented by the ordinance has
happened, non-compliance with the ordinance was not only an act of negligence, but also the
proximate cause of the death.

Petitioner's negligence is the source of his obligation. He is not being held liable for breach of his
contractual obligation due to negligence but for his negligence in not complying with a duty imposed
on him by law. It is therefore immaterial that the loss occasioned to private respondent was due to a
fortuitous event, since it was petitioner's negligence in not insuring against the risk which was the
proximate cause of the loss.

There is thus a statutory duty imposed on petitioner and it is for his failure to comply with this duty
that he was guilty or negligence rendering him liable for damages to private respondent. While the
fire in this case may be considered a fortuitous event, this circumstance cannot exempt petitioner
from liability for loss.