View full case

ROBERTO C. SICAM v. LULU V. JORGE

FACTS:

Lulu V. Jorge pawned jewelry with Agencia de R.C. Sicam, owned by Roberto C. Sicam Jr., to secure a loan. The jewelry was later stolen during a robbery. Petitioner Sicam informed respondent Lulu of the loss through a letter. Respondent Lulu expressed disbelief, claiming that the pawned jewelry were deposited in a bank. Petitioner Sicam failed to return the jewelry, prompting respondent Lulu and her husband to file a complaint for indemnification and damages against petitioner Sicam. Petitioner Sicam argued that he was not the real party-in-interest as the pawnshop was incorporated as Agencia de R.C. Sicam, Inc. Petitioner Sicam's motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that petitioner Sicam cannot be personally liable for a corporate transaction and that the corporation cannot be held liable for the loss due to robbery. Respondents appealed to the CA, which reversed the trial court's decision and held both petitioner Sicam and the corporation liable. The CA invoked the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, reasoning that respondents were misled into thinking that they were dealing with the pawnshop owned by petitioner Sicam. The CA also held that petitioners failed to take necessary steps to secure and protect the pledged items and should have obtained insurance. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and upheld the CA's decision to hold petitioner Sicam personally liable in addition to the corporation. Respondents argued that petitioner Sicam continued to issue pawnshop receipts under his name instead of the corporation's name, supporting the piercing of the corporate veil.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the court erred in piercing the veil of corporate fiction of the petitioner corporation.

  2. Whether or not the petitioners are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession.

  3. Whether the loss of the pawned items due to a robbery can be considered as a fortuitous event.

  4. Whether the pawnshop owners are liable for concurrent or contributory negligence.

  5. Whether or not the petitioners were negligent in securing the pawnshop and protecting the pawned jewelries.

  6. Whether or not the petitioners had a statutory duty to insure the pawned jewelries against burglary.

  7. Whether the petitioner in this case was negligent in handling the cash proceeds of the checks.

  8. Whether the robbery that occurred was a result of the petitioner's negligence.

RULING:

  1. The court did not err in piercing the veil of corporate fiction of the petitioner corporation. The fact that petitioner Sicam continued to issue pawnshop receipts under his name and not under the corporation's name supports the piercing of the corporate veil.

  2. The petitioners are liable for the loss of the pawned articles in their possession. The defense of fortuitous event is not applicable as the possibility of robbery was foreseeable and anticipated by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners failed to show that they were free from any negligence that may have caused the loss.

  3. The loss of the pawned items due to a robbery cannot be considered as a fortuitous event. Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortuitous event. To be considered as such, carnapping entails more than the mere forceful taking of another's property. It must be proved and established that the event was an act of God or was done solely by third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleged to be negligent has any participation. The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on the private respondent, but they failed to provide sufficient evidence other than the police report of the alleged robbery incident.

  4. The pawnshop owners are guilty of concurrent or contributory negligence. Article 1170 of the Civil Code states that those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay are liable for damages. In this case, the pawnshop owners failed to exercise reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. They did not have sufficient security measures in place and failed to ensure that suspicious individuals were not allowed to enter the premises. Therefore, they are liable for concurrent or contributory negligence.

  5. The petitioners were found to be negligent in securing the pawnshop and protecting the pawned jewelries. The court held that the petitioners failed to exercise the diligence required of them under the Civil Code.

  6. The court ruled that there was no statutory duty imposed on the petitioners to insure the pawned jewelries against burglary. The requirement to insure against burglary was deleted in the amendment to Central Bank Circular No. 374.

  7. The petitioner was not negligent in deciding to encash the check and bringing it home instead of his office due to the lateness of the hour. The petitioner had valid reasons for choosing the safer option and his decision was not deemed imprudent or negligent.

  8. The fact that two robbers attacked the petitioner in broad daylight in a public utility vehicle could not be attributed to his imprudence and negligence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The separate juridical personality of a corporation shields its stockholders from personal liability for corporate debts or credits.

  • For the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to apply, there must be evidence to support the piercing, such as the disregard of the separate corporate existence or the use of corporate assets for personal purposes.

  • A fortuitous event is an extraordinary event that is not foreseeable or avoidable. The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on the party invoking it, and negligence or misconduct that may have occasioned the loss will not exempt one from liability.

  • Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortuitous event.

  • The burden of proving that the loss was due to a fortuitous event rests on the claimant.

  • Those who are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay in the performance of their obligations are liable for damages under Article 1170 of the Civil Code.

  • The creditor in a pledge has a duty to take care of the pledged thing with the diligence of a good father of a family.

  • Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

  • The fault or negligence of an obligor consists of the omission of the diligence required by the nature of the obligation and the circumstances of the persons, time, and place under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.

  • The diligence with which the law requires an individual to govern their conduct varies with the nature of the situation and the importance of the act to be performed.

  • The absence of concurrent or contributory fault or negligence on the debtor's part is necessary for the debtor to be relieved from civil liability due to a fortuitous event.

  • Negligence per se occurs when an individual's conduct is in violation of a law or regulation designed to protect that individual or others against harm.

  • The level of precaution and protection required may vary depending on the prevailing circumstances, such as the incidence of crimes in a particular area.

  • When deciding on handling funds, unselfish motives and concerns for the welfare of others may be taken into account.

  • The circumstances and comparative hazards should be considered in determining whether a decision is prudent or negligent.

  • Negligence cannot be presumed and specific acts of negligence must be shown.

  • When individuals have control over their premises, they have the responsibility to exercise precautionary measures to protect against unlawful intrusion.