GR 138123; (March, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138123 March 12, 2002
Mindex Resources Development, petitioner, vs. Ephraim Morillo, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Morillo leased his 6×6 cargo truck to petitioner Mindex for its mining operations. On April 11, 1991, the truck, which had been parked unattended for two weeks at a remote site due to mechanical trouble, was burned by unidentified persons. Mindex had ceased rental payments. Morillo offered to sell the damaged truck to Mindex, but the latter refused, proposing instead to pay the unpaid rentals of P76,000 and to repair the truck at its own expense before returning it. Morillo agreed only to the payment of rentals. As no settlement was reached, Morillo eventually retrieved the truck and had it repaired himself for P132,750.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Mindex is liable for the loss of the leased truck and the consequent repair costs, and whether the award of attorney’s fees to Morillo was proper.
RULING
Yes, Mindex is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings. Under Article 1667 of the Civil Code, a lessee is presumed responsible for the loss of the leased thing unless it proves the loss occurred without its fault. The burning, while caused by unidentified persons, was not a fortuitous event that would exempt Mindex from liability. Fortuitous events must be absolutely unforeseeable and unavoidable. Here, the loss was avoidable; Mindex was negligent in leaving the valuable truck unattended in a remote, sparsely populated area for an extended period without adequate security, making it a foreseeable target. This negligence broke the chain of causation and made Mindex liable.
Regarding attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court deleted the award. While the trial court granted P20,000 in attorney’s fees because Morillo was compelled to litigate, the Supreme Court reiterated that such compulsion alone is insufficient. Attorney’s fees as part of damages must be specifically proven and justified, with the factual and legal basis stated in the text of the decision. The lower courts failed to provide this requisite justification. Therefore, the award was unwarranted. The Court modified the interest rates as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.