**Cipriano vs. Court of Appeals and Maclin Electronics, Inc., G.R. No. 111127**
### Facts:
**Rustproofing Job and the Fire Incident**
– April 30, 1991: Maclin Electronics, Inc., via an employee, brought a 1990 Kia Pride to E.S. Cipriano Enterprises (Motobilkote) for rustproofing.
– Accepted under Job Order No. 123581, it was ready for release by the afternoon, as rustproofing took six hours.
– Evening of May 1, 1991: A fire broke out at the Lambat restaurant, owned by Elias S. Cipriano, adjacent to the rustproofing shop, destroying the shop and the car.
**Initial Responses**
– May 8, 1991: Maclin Electronics demanded reimbursement (P252,155.00) for the car.
– Cipriano denied liability, claiming the fire was a fortuitous event.
**Lawsuit for Damages**
– Complaint filed alleging negligence due to lack of business registration with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and insurance as required by P.D. No. 1572.
– Cipriano’s defenses included regular electrical inspections, installed firefighting devices, and the assertion that the rustproofing materials were non-inflammable. He also argued that Maclin Electronics delayed claiming the car, causing its loss.
### Procedural History:
**Trial Court**
– The Quezon City RTC Branch 58 found for Maclin Electronics, citing Cipriano’s failure to register and insure his business per P.D. No. 1572 as negligence per se.
– Ordered Cipriano to pay P252,155.00 with 6% interest per annum and P10,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
**Court of Appeals**
– Affirmed RTC’s decision, highlighting the illegal operation of Cipriano’s unaccredited business, which did not have fire insurance.
– Agreed that Cipriano’s refusal to pay was unjust, justifying the award of attorney’s fees.
### Issues:
1. Was the fire that destroyed the car a fortuitous event exempting Cipriano from liability?
2. Did Cipriano’s failure to register his business and insure the customer’s property constitute negligence?
3. Was the award of attorney’s fees appropriate?
### Court’s Decision:
**Issue 1: Fortuitous Event**
– Fortuitous events do not exempt Cipriano from liability due to a statutory duty under P.D. No. 1572 and Ministry Order No. 32 to insure against such risks.
**Issue 2: Negligence Due to Statutory Duty**
– Cipriano’s failure to comply with P.D. No. 1572 and Ministry Order No. 32, requiring business registration and insurance for customers’ property, was negligence per se.
**Issue 3: Attorney’s Fees**
– The Court found the award of attorney’s fees unjustified as the lower court did not explicitly justify it. The Court deleted the award, reinforcing the necessity of explicit reasoning for such fees to prevent penalizing the right to litigate.
### Doctrine:
**Negligence Per Se and Proximate Cause:**
– **Violation of a statutory duty constitutes negligence per se.**
– **Essential Provisions:**
– **Art. 1174 & Art. 1262, Civil Code:** Exceptions to liability in fortuitous events unless the nature of the obligation demands risk assumption.
– **P.D. No. 1572 §1** and **Ministry Order No. 32:** Registration and insurance obligations for service and repair enterprises.
### Class Notes:
– **Negligence Per Se:** Failure to comply with statutory duties (e.g., registration and insurance) results in negligence.
– **Proximate Cause:** A direct consequence of negligence owing to the statutory duty.
– **Legal Citations:**
– **Art. 1174, Civil Code:** Liability for fortuitous events based on statutory obligations.
– **P.D. No. 1572:** Registration and insurance requirements for service businesses.
– **Ministry Order No. 32:** Detailed insurance coverage for vehicles and equipment in repair shops must be secured.
### Historical Background:
**Consumer Protection Development:**
– P.D. No. 1572 was issued to enhance consumer protection in service and repair enterprises.
– The judiciary, through cases like this, underscores compliance with regulations to mitigate losses and risks to consumers.
Leave a Reply