Juntilla vs. Fontanar (Case Digest) PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Juntilla vs. Fontanar (Case Digest) PDF

Description

Centro Escolar University School of Law and Jurisprudence Subject: Torts and Damages Academic Year: 2021 to 2022 Professor: Atty. Aldrin Mark M. Quintana University: Centro Escolar University – Makati

CASE SUMMARY IN THE CASE OF JUNTILLA VS. FONTANAR ROBERTO JUNTILLA, petitioner, vs. CLEMENTE FONTANAR, FERNANDO BANZON and BERFOL CAMORO, respondents.

G.R. No. L-45637. May 31, 1985 Case Title: ROBERTO JUNTILLA, petitioner, vs. CLEMENTE FONTANAR, FERNANDO BANZON and BERFOL CAMORO, respondents. Ponente: Guttierez, Jr., J. Topic: Fortuitous Events

Doctrine: Essential characteristics of a caso fortuito or fortuitous event: (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will; (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

Facts of the case: The petitioner here, Roberto Juntilla, is the passenger of the jeepney driven by defendant Berfol Camoro. This jeepney is registered under the franchise of defendant Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned by defendant Fernando Banzon. While on its way from Danao City to Cebu City, the right tire of the jeepney exploded, and the jeepney turned turle and jumped into a ditch. As a result, the petitioner was thrown out of the jeepney as he was sitting in the front sit. He lost consciousness and suffered wounds and injuries on his palm, arm, thigh and back, but he was treated in a hospital. While on his way to the hospital, he realized that he also lost his OMEGA wrist watch as a result of the accident. So Juntilla filed a civil case for breach of contract with damages against the defendants. The defendants argued that they cannot answer the losses incurred by petitioner because the accident was beyond their control because the tire that exploded was actually newly bought and was slightly used at the time it blew up. The City Court of Cebu ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, upon appeal of the defendants, the Court of First Instance of Cebu reversed the ruling of the City Court on the ground that the accident in question was due to fortuitous event. The motion for reconsideration by the petitioner was denied by the court of first instance. Hence, this petition.

Issue of the case: Whether the explosion of the tire is a fortuitous event. Ruling of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. It mentioned the essential characteristics of a caso fortuito or fortuitous event: 1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will. 2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. 3. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner. 4. The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor In this case, the elements of caso fortuito are lacking because as correctly found by the lower courts, even though the tire was newly bought, the passenger jeepney was running very fast and it was actually overloaded at the time of the accident. The court also said that the sudden blowing-up of the tire could have been cause by too much pressure because the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the accident. The source of a common carriers legal liability is the contract of carriage, and by entering this contract, the common carrier is bound to carry its passengers with extraordinary diligence, which in this case, the defendant also failed to meet such obligation. Hence, the decision of the Court of First Instance was reversed and set aside....