Mindex Resources Dev't v. Morillo

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Case No.

5
MINDEX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, Petitioner, v. EPHRAIM
MORILLO, Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioner agrees verbally to lease a 6x6 cargo truck owned by the respondent
Ephraim Morillo for use in MINDEX' mining operations. Unkown to Morillo the said truck
was burned by unindentified persons while parked unattended after it suffered
mechanical trouble. The truck was totally burned and only its engine  was partially
burned. Upon learning of the incident Morillo offered to sell the truck to petitioner, but
the latter refused. Instead it replaced the trucks tires and had it towed for repair and
overhauling. Morillo sent a proposal to Mindex that for the payment of the cost of the
truck in four (4) installments plus unpaid rentals but due to the tight finances, petitioner
instead made a counteroffer to pay the rent, repair and overhaul the truck and return it
to Morillo. With the parties unable to come to an agreement, Morillo pulled out the
truck from Mindex' repair shop and had it repaired somewhere else.

The RTC found petitioner guilty for the destruction of the vehicle. This was affirmed by
the CA and held petitioner responsible for its loss and destruction of the truck and was
thus liable. CA modified the decision of the RTC by changing the 12% to 6% on the
rentals and repair costs until the date of the finality of the decision trial court and 12
percent per annum thereafter, if the amounts adjudged would remain unpaid from such
date of finality until the rentals and the repair costs were fully paid. CA also affirmed
the award of attorney’s fees. Hence this petition. Petitioner claims that the burning of
the truck was a fortuitous event, for which it should not be held liable pursuant to
Article 1174. Moreover, the letter of respondent dated April 15, 1991, stating that the
burning of the truck was an “unforeseen adversity,” was an admission that should
exculpate the former from liability.

Issue:

Whether or not the burning is a fortuitous event?

Ruling:

No. Both the RTC and the CA found petitioner negligent and thus liable for the
loss or destruction of the leased truck. True, both parties may have suffered from the
burning of the truck but as found by both lower courts, the negligence of petitioner
makes it responsible for the loss. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial
court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court. 

Contrary to its allegations, petitioner has not adequately shown that the RTC and the
CA overlooked or disregarded significant facts and circumstances that, when
considered, would alter the outcome of the disposition Article 1667 of the Civil
Code holds lessees responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing leased, unless
they prove that it took place without their fault.

An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to forestall the
possible adverse consequences of such a loss-when the effect is found to be partly the
result of a person’s participation, whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to
act, the whole occurrence is humanized and removes from the rules applicable to acts
of God. Petitioner is also negligent. Negligence, as commonly understood, is that
conduct that naturally or reasonably creates undue risks or harm to others.

You might also like