GR 25906; (May, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970
PEDRO D. DIOQUINO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO LAUREANO, AIDA DE LAUREANO and JUANITO LAUREANO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff Pedro D. Dioquino, a lawyer, owned a car. On March 31, 1964, at the MVO office in Masbate, he met defendant Federico Laureano, a patrol officer, and requested Laureano’s assistance in facilitating his car’s registration. Laureano agreed and rode in Dioquino’s car, driven by Dioquino’s driver, to go to the PC barracks. During the trip, some mischievous boys threw stones at the car, breaking its windshield. Laureano caught one of the boys, who admitted to the act. The boy’s father was called, but no settlement was reached. Laureano refused to pay for the damage, believing the stone-throwing was a fortuitous event. Dioquino filed a lawsuit against Federico Laureano, his wife Aida de Laureano, and his father Juanito Laureano. The lower court held only Federico Laureano liable for damages, absolving the wife and father. All three defendants appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether defendant Federico Laureano is liable for the damage to the car’s windshield caused by the stone-throwing, or if it constitutes a fortuitous event exempting him from liability.
2. Whether the plaintiff should be held liable for damages for including the wife and father as defendants in the lawsuit.
RULING
1. No, Federico Laureano is not liable. The stone-throwing was a fortuitous event under Article 1174 of the Civil Code. The event was unforeseen and inevitable, and there was no legal provision, stipulation, or nature of the obligation requiring Laureano to assume such a risk. The lower court erred in holding him liable. The Supreme Court reversed the decision ordering Laureano to pay damages.
2. No, the plaintiff is not liable for damages for including the wife and father. While the inclusion of the wife and father was mistaken and not legally justified, the plaintiff was not motivated solely by a desire to vex them. Considering the equities of the case, where the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss, he should not be further penalized for his erroneous view of the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case against Juanito Laureano and Aida de Laureano and its denial of moral damages.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision of the lower court ordering defendant Federico Laureano to pay damages is reversed. The dismissal of the case against Juanito Laureano and Aida de Laureano is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.