GUILLERMO AUSTRIA,

petitioner
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), PACIFICO ABAD and MARIA G. ABAD,
respondents

CASE PROBLEM:
Respondent, Maria Abad received one (1) pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00,
to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on demand from the petitioner, Guillermo
Austria. On February 1, 1961, while the respondent was walking home to her residence in
Mandaluyong, Rizal, she was approached by two men. One of them hit her and the other
snatched her purse containing the pendant she received from the petitioner. The incident
became the subject of a criminal case filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Due to respondent’s failure to return the jewelry or pay for its value despite repeated
demands, Austria filed an action for recovery and damages against Maria and her husband in
the Court of First Instance of Manila. The respondents argued that the alleged robbery
extinguished their obligation due to it being a fortuitous event. On the other hand, Guillermo
Austria contended that for robbery to fall under the category of a fortuitous event and relieve
the obligor from his obligation under a contract, there ought to be prior finding on the guilt of
the persons responsible therefor.

QUESTION:
a) What is the source of obligation between the petitioner and respondent? (2%)
b) Is Guillermo Austria’s contention correct? Explain. (4%)
c) What requisites should the petitioner fulfill to be exempted from liability due to
fortuitous event? (4%)

ANSWER:
a. The source of obligation between Guillermo Austria and Maria Abad is a contract of agency.
Civil Code states that by the contract of agency, a person (agent) binds himself to render some
service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another (principal), with the
consent or authority of the latter.

b. No, it is incorrect. 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; it would be sufficient to
establish that the enforceable event, the robbery in this case did take place without any
concurrent fault on the debtor's part.

ART. 1174
Except in cases expressly specified by 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.

c. The requisites to claim exemption from liability due to fortuitous event are (1) the event
must be independent of the human will or rather, of the debtor's or obligor's; (2) the
occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal manner;
and that (3) the obligor must be free of participation in or aggravation of the injury to the
creditor.