GR 153587; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153587 ; February 27, 2008
Gloria Sondayon, petitioner, vs. P.J. Lhuillier, Inc. and Ricardo Diago, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gloria Sondayon pawned her Patek Philippe gold watch, valued at P250,000, with respondent P.J. Lhuillier, Inc., operator of La Cebuana Pawnshop. The pawn ticket indicated an appraised value of P15,000 and contained a clause stating the pawnee shall not be liable for loss due to fortuitous events like robbery. On August 10, 1996, the pawnshop was robbed by Guimad Mantung, the security guard assigned by Sultan Security Agency, resulting in the loss of the watch and other items. Respondent company failed to return the watch, claiming the loss was a fortuitous event.
Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the robbery was a fortuitous event and the contractual limitation of liability was valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner elevated the case, arguing the robbery was not fortuitous as it was committed by an employee, and that respondents were negligent for failing to insure the pledged articles as required by the Pawnshop Regulation Act.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent pawnshop is liable for the loss of the pledged watch despite the robbery and the contractual limitation of liability.
RULING
Yes, but liability is limited to the appraised value. The Supreme Court modified the appellate decision. The robbery constituted a fortuitous event, as the security guard who committed the crime was not an employee of the respondent pawnshop but of an independent security agency. The contractual provision limiting liability to the appraised value in case of loss due to the pawnshop’s negligence is valid and binding.
However, the Court found respondent company negligent for its failure to insure the pledged articles against burglary as expressly required by Section 10 of the Pawnshop Regulation Act. This statutory duty is integral to the contract of pledge. The breach of this obligation contributed to petitioner’s loss, as insurance would have provided compensation. Consequently, respondent company is liable to pay the agreed appraised value of P15,000. Furthermore, for its disregard of a legal duty designed for the protection of the public, the Court awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 to serve as a deterrent.