G.R. No. 32465 & G.R. No. 32466, December 20, 1930
LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY vs. JANUARIO DE LOS REYES and RAMON BARTOLAZO vs. LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY

FACTS

La Sociedad Dalisay (Dalisay), an industrial partnership, operated a warehouse in Santa Rosa, Laguna. It received deposits of palay from various individuals. On May 20, 1923, a fire broke out in the warehouse, destroying most of the stored palay. A total of 1,052 cavanes were saved from inside the warehouse, and an additional 568 cavanes stored outside were completely saved. The manager of Dalisay, Ricardo Perlas, sold 882 cavanes of the saved palay to Januario de los Reyes, who later sold it, retaining the net proceeds of P2,238.98. Multiple depositors, including Ramon Bartolazo, filed actions to recover their palay or its value. Two consolidated cases were filed: (1) Dalisay sued de los Reyes for the return of the goods or their value (G.R. No. 32465), and (2) Bartolazo sued Dalisay for the return of his deposit (G.R. No. 32466). The trial court held Dalisay liable to the depositors for the palay stored at the time of the fire (3,572 cavanes) at P5 per cavan, ordering de los Reyes to pay Dalisay P2,238.98, from which his share of the total liability would be deducted. Dalisay appealed.

ISSUE

1. Is La Sociedad Dalisay, as a depositary, liable for the loss of the palay deposited with it due to the fire?
2. Is the manager of Dalisay, Ricardo Perlas, guilty of negligence in failing to save more palay from the fire?
3. Is Januario de los Reyes entitled to deduct his share of the palay from the P2,238.98 he is ordered to return to Dalisay?

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the trial court’s decision, ABSOLVING La Sociedad Dalisay from liability for the palay destroyed by the fire, except to distribute the proceeds of the palay actually saved.

1. On Dalisay’s Liability: Dalisay, as a depositary, is not an insurer of the goods deposited. Under Article 1602 of the Civil Code (now Article 1972, Civil Code), a depositary is liable only if the loss is due to its fraud or negligence. The burden of proof to show such fault lies with the depositors. The Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the fire was intentional or caused by Dalisay’s negligence. The presumption of innocence and ordinary care (Sec. 334, Code of Civil Procedure) operates in Dalisay’s favor. Therefore, Dalisay is not liable for the palay lost in the fire.

2. On the Manager’s Negligence: The Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that the manager failed to attempt to save the palay and that more could have been saved. The evidence did not substantiate a finding of negligence on the part of manager Perlas in his efforts during the fire.

3. On the Deduction from de los Reyes’ Payment: The Court eliminated the trial court’s order allowing Januario de los Reyes to deduct his proportionate share from the P2,238.98. Since Dalisay was found not liable for the lost palay, there is no basis for such a deduction. De los Reyes must return the full P2,238.98 (the net proceeds from the saved palay he purchased) to Dalisay.

DISPOSITIVE:
Dalisay is absolved from distributing or returning any palay or its value to the depositors, except for the proceeds of the palay actually saved (P2,238.98). Januario de los Reyes is ordered to deliver the full amount of P2,238.98 to Dalisay without any deduction. Dalisay must then distribute this sum among the depositors in proportion to the amount of palay each had in the warehouse at the time of the fire. The rest of the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. No costs.

SEPARATE OPINION: Justices Ostrand and Johns dissented, believing the appealed judgment should have been affirmed in full.