Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 268 views

    ICTS V Chua

    Uploaded by

    Carlyn Belle de Guzman
    The container van containing respondent Celeste Chua's personal effects arrived at petitioner International Container Terminal's depot on April 2, 1997. On May 8th, the depot was gutted by fire, burning respondent's container and 44 others. An investigation found 70% of the contents were totally burnt and 30% were wet, dirty and unusable. The court held that the fire was not a fortuitous event, as it was not caused by an act of God. As the petitioner depot owner could not explain the cause of the fire to absolve itself of liability, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) was applied, making the petitioner presumed negligent. The petitioner failed to prove it exercised

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ICTS V Chua

    Uploaded by

    Carlyn Belle de Guzman
    268 views1 page
    The container van containing respondent Celeste Chua's personal effects arrived at petitioner International Container Terminal's depot on April 2, 1997. On May 8th, the depot was gutted by fire, burning respondent's container and 44 others. An investigation found 70% of the contents were totally burnt and 30% were wet, dirty and unusable. The court held that the fire was not a fortuitous event, as it was not caused by an act of God. As the petitioner depot owner could not explain the cause of the fire to absolve itself of liability, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) was applied, making the petitioner presumed negligent. The petitioner failed to prove it exercised

    Original Description:

    ...

    Original Title

    ICTS v Chua

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The container van containing respondent Celeste Chua's personal effects arrived at petitioner International Container Terminal's depot on April 2, 1997. On May 8th, the depot was gutted by fire, burning respondent's container and 44 others. An investigation found 70% of the contents were totally burnt and 30% were wet, dirty and unusable. The court held that the fire was not a fortuitous event, as it was not caused by an act of God. As the petitioner depot owner could not explain the cause of the fire to absolve itself of liability, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) was applied, making the petitioner presumed negligent. The petitioner failed to prove it exercised

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    268 views1 page

    ICTS V Chua

    Uploaded by

    Carlyn Belle de Guzman
    The container van containing respondent Celeste Chua's personal effects arrived at petitioner International Container Terminal's depot on April 2, 1997. On May 8th, the depot was gutted by fire, burning respondent's container and 44 others. An investigation found 70% of the contents were totally burnt and 30% were wet, dirty and unusable. The court held that the fire was not a fortuitous event, as it was not caused by an act of God. As the petitioner depot owner could not explain the cause of the fire to absolve itself of liability, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) was applied, making the petitioner presumed negligent. The petitioner failed to prove it exercised

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DE GUZMAN, CARLYN BELLE

    SECOND DIVISION
    G.R. No. 195031, March 26, 2014
    INTERNATIONAL
    SERVICES,

    CONTAINER

    TERMINAL

    INC., Petitioner, v. CELESTE

    M.

    CHUA,Respondent.
    DECISION
    PEREZ, J.:
    Facts:
    On April 2, 1997, the twenty (20)feet container van
    loaded with the personal effects of [respondent]
    Celeste M. Chua arrived at the North Harbor,
    Manila, from Oakland, California, x x x. On even
    date, it was unloaded from the vessel and was placed
    in the depot belonging to [petitioner] for safekeeping
    pending the customs inspection.
    On April 6, 1997, the container van was stripped and
    partially inspected by custom authorities. Further
    inspection thereof was scheduled on May 8, 1997.
    However, on the date scheduled, [petitioners] depot
    was gutted by fire and [respondents] container van,
    together with fortyfour (44) others, were burned. In
    the survey conducted thereafter, seventy percent
    (70%) of the contents of the van was found to be
    totally burnt while thirty percent (30%) thereof was
    wet, dirty, and unusable.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the fire is a fortuitous event and
    whether or not the petitioner the owner of the depot
    is negligent and liable or damages.

    Held:
    No. The fire is not a fortuitous event and the
    petitioner owner of depot is deemed negligent.
    This Court will no longer delve on the issue of
    whether or not the fire which caused the loss of
    and/or damage to respondents personal effects is a

    fortuitous event since both the trial court and the


    Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the fire which
    occurred in this case cannot be considered an act of
    God since the same was not caused by lightning or a
    natural disaster or other calamity not attributable to
    human
    agency.
    With respect to the issue of negligence, there is no
    doubt that, under the circumstances of this case,
    petitioner is liable to respondent for damages on
    account of the loss of the contents of her container
    van. Petitioner itself admitted during the pretrial of
    this case that respondents container van caught fire
    while stored within its premises. 10 Absent any
    justifiable explanation on the part of petitioner on
    the cause of the fire as would absolve it from liability,
    the presumption that there was negligence on its
    part comes into play. The situation in this case,
    therefore, calls for the application of the doctrine
    of res
    ipsa
    loquitur.
    The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is based on the
    theory that the defendant either knows the cause of
    the accident or has the best opportunity of
    ascertaining it and the plaintiff, having no knowledge
    thereof, is compelled to allege negligence in general
    terms. In such instance, the plaintiff relies on proof
    of the happening of the accident alone to establish
    negligence.11 The principle, furthermore, provides a
    means by which a plaintiff can hold liable a
    defendant who, if innocent, should be able to prove
    that he exercised due care to prevent the accident
    complained of from happening. It is, consequently,
    the defendants responsibility to show that there was
    no negligence on his part.12 The doctrine, however,
    can be invoked when and only when, under the
    circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and
    not readily available.13 Here, there was no evidence
    as to how or why the fire in the container yard of
    petitioner started; hence, it was up to petitioner to
    satisfactorily prove that it exercised the diligence
    required to prevent the fire from happening. This it
    failed to do. Thus, the trial court and the Court of
    Appeals acted appropriately in applying the principle
    of res ipsa loquitur to the case at bar.

    You might also like