E.S. Cipriano Enterprises vs. Maclin Electronics, Inc., [G.R. No. 111127, July 26, 1996]
### Facts:
Elias S. Cipriano, owner of E.S. Cipriano Enterprises (operating under “Mobilkote”), was engaged in the rustproofing of vehicles. On April 30, 1991, an employee of Maclin Electronics, Inc. took a 1990 Kia Pride vehicle to Cipriano’s shop for rustproofing. The vehicle was purchased for P252,155.00.
On May 1, 1991, a fire broke out at Lambat restaurant, which was adjacent to the Mobilkote shop. The fire destroyed both establishments and the Kia Pride vehicle, which had been kept inside to protect it overnight. Cipriano claimed the fire was a fortuitous event and denied liability for the loss.
Maclin Electronics demanded reimbursement for the value of the vehicle but Cipriano refused, citing the fire as a fortuitous event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code. Maclin Electronics then filed suit seeking damages, arguing Cipriano’s negligence for not registering his business and failing to insure as mandated by P.D. No. 1572.
Trial Court: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Maclin Electronics, mandating Cipriano to pay P252,155.00 plus P10,000.00 in attorney’s fees, citing Cipriano’s non-compliance with P.D. No. 1572 as negligence per se.
Court of Appeals: On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s decision, emphasizing the statutory duty required by P.D. No. 1572, which Cipriano violated by not having the necessary insurance.
### Issues:
1. Can Cipriano invoke the occurrence of a fortuitous event to escape liability for the loss of Maclin Electronics’ vehicle?
2. Was Cipriano negligent in failing to register his business and insure the vehicle, thereby rendering him liable for damages?
3. Was the award of attorney’s fees justified?
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Fortuitous Event and Liability**:
– The Supreme Court held that while fire may be considered a fortuitous event, Cipriano’s failure to insure against such risks, as required by P.D. No. 1572, constituted negligence. The law mandates service and repair enterprises to secure insurance coverage for customer property. Therefore, Cipriano’s negligence in not obtaining insurance meant he assumed liability.
2. **Negligence and Compliance with P.D. No. 1572**:
– The Court reiterated the principle that violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se. Cipriano’s failure to register his business and the lack of insurance coverage directly led to his liability for the damage. By operating illegally without accreditation and the required fire insurance, Cipriano bore the risk of losing customers’ property.
3. **Attorney’s Fees**:
– The Supreme Court found the award of attorney’s fees inappropriate because the lower court did not provide explicit reasoning for the award. An award of attorney’s fees requires specific justification within the court’s decision.
### Doctrine:
– **Negligence Per Se**: Non-compliance with statutory duties leads to automatic liability for effects resulting from the failure to follow such laws, as supported in P.D. No. 1572 for service and repair enterprises.
– **Fortuitous Events**: Circumstances do not exempt liability if one’s negligence (such as failing to insure) is the proximate cause of the damage.
### Class Notes:
– **Negligence Per Se**: Violation of statutory requirements by service and repair enterprises necessitates liability for damages caused by Events, even if such events are considered fortuitous.
– **P.D. No. 1572**: Mandates registration and insurance coverage for businesses engaged in repair services to protect customer property.
– **Civil Code Article 1174**: Exempts liability for unforeseen events unless obligation assumes risk, either by nature, stipulation, or law.
– **Attorney’s Fees**: Require explicit justification in court decisions (Art. 2208, Civil Code).
### Historical Background:
– The case exists within the broader legal framework addressing liability and consumer protection in the Philippines. It underlines the importance of statutory compliance for businesses and was decided against a backdrop of increasing consumer rights awareness and regulatory enforcement.
Leave a Reply