Facts: Lulu V. Jorge pawned several pieces of jewelry with Agencia de R.C. Sica the total a ount of !"#!$$php.

to secure a loan in

%cto&er '"# '"()# two ar ed en entered the pawnshop and too* away whatever cash and jewelry were found inside the pawnshop vault. Sica sent respondent Lulu a letter infor ing her of the loss of her jewelry due to the ro&&ery incident in the pawnshop. Respondent Lulu e+pressed dis&elief stating that when the ro&&ery happened# all jewelry pawned were deposited with Far ,ast -an* near the pawnshop since it had &een the practice that &efore they could withdraw# advance notice ust &e given to the pawnshop so it could withdraw the jewelry fro the &an*. Respondent Lulu then re.uested petitioner Sica to prepare the pawned jewelry for withdrawal on &ut petitioner Sica failed to return the jewelry. Respondent Lulu is see*ing inde nification for the loss of pawned jewelry and pay ent of da ages. /etitioner is interposing the defense of caso fortuito on the ro&&er co itted against the pawnshop. 0ssue: 1hether or not the ro&&ery that happened at the pawnshop of the petitioner is considered as fortuitous even2 Ruling: 0n order for a fortuitous event to e+e pt one fro the lia&ility# it is necessary that one has co itted or isconduct that ay have occasioned with the loss. Fortuitous events &y definition are e+traordinary events not foreseea&le or avoida&le. 0t is therefore# not enough that the event should not have &een foreseen or anticipated# as is co only &elieved &ut it ust &e one i possi&le to foresee or to avoid. 3he ere difficulty to foresee the happening is not i possi&ility to foresee the sa e. Ro&&ery per se# just li*e carnapping# is not a fortuitous event. 0t does not foreclose the possi&ility of negligence on the part of herein petitioners. 0t ust &e proved and esta&lished that the event was an act of 4od or was done soley &y the third parties and that neither the clai ant nor the person alleged to &e negligent has any part of the participations.

5egligence is the o ission to do so ething which a reasona&le an# guided &y those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of hu an affairs# would do or not doing so ething which are prudent and reasona&le an would not do. A review of the records clearly shows that petitioners failed to e+ercise reasona&le care and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the sa e situation. /etitioners were guilty of negligence in the operation of their pawnshop &usiness. 5o sufficient precaution and vigilance were adopted &y petitioners to protect the pawnshop fro unlawful intrusion. 3here was no clear showing that there was any security guard at all. Sica 6s ad ission that the vault was open at the ti e of ro&&ery is clearly a proof of petitioners6 failure to o&serve the care# precaution and vigilance that the circu stances justly de anded. /etitioner Sica testified that once the pawnshop was open# the co &ination was already off. 0nstead of ta*ing the precaution to protect the # they let open the vault# providing no difficulty for the ro&&ers to cart away the pawned articles. 0n contrast# the ro&&ery in this case too* place in '"() when ro&&ery was already prevalent and petitioners in fact had already foreseen it as they wanted to deposit the pawn with a near&y &an* for safe*eeping. 7oreover# unli*e in Austria# where no negligence was co itted# we found petitioners negligent in securing their pawnshop as earlier discussed. Ro&&ery is not a fortuitous event. Sica failed to prove that he e+ercised reasona&le care and caution that a prudent an does in the sa e situation. 3hus# Sica is negligent and is lia&le for the loss jewelry.