Fortuitous events, force majeure, & acts of God.

In a receipt dated Jan 30, 1961, Maria G. Abad acknowledged that she received a pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00 from Guillermo Austria. This pendant was meant to be sold on commission, or returned upon request.

However, on Feb 1, 1961, as Ms. Abad was walking home in Mandaluyong, she was accosted by two men. One of them struck her in the face, while the other snatched her purse containing jewelry and cash, before fleeing. Among the stolen items was Guillermo Austria's consigned pendant.

Mr. Austria subsequently filed a case seeking the return of the pendant or payment of its value along with damages. Ms. Abad was no longer able to return the jewelry, nor could she afford to cover the cost. Her defense was that the pendant's robbery had released her from their obligation.

The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Austria, ordering Ms. Abad to pay the value of the pendant, interest, attorneys fees, and costs. The trial court further stated that the robbery was not proved, or, if indeed it was committed, that defendant Abad was guilty of negligence when she walked home without any companion even as it was already getting dark, all while carrying a substantial amount of cash and valuables.

Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court, which decided that Ms. Abad is not responsible for the loss of the jewelry on account of a fortuitous event. Simply put, she need not repay or return the value of the jewelry to Ms. Austria. (Austria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-29640 June 10, 1971)

More than 30 yeas later, or in 2007, the Supreme Court decided on another case, where a party entrusted with valuable jewelry sought to be excused from having to return the item, due to loss or robbery.

On different dates of the year 1987, Lulu V. Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam, a pawnshop, to secure a loan in the total amount of P59,500.

Later, the pawnshop was robbed by two armed men, and the jewelry pawned by Ms. Jorge was among the items taken in the robbery. Mr. Sicam, the owner of the pawnshop, sent Ms. Jorge a letter informing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the robbery, but she still insisted on the return of her items, leading her to file a case for indemnification and damages with the courts.

In this case, the Supreme Court found Mr. Sicam and the pawnshop liable to pay Ms. Jorge for the jewelry, declaring that a robbery, in itself, is not automatically considered a fortuitous event to exempt Mr...