2018-1-003125 Oct.

10, 2018

Cayetano, Jan Stephen Gerard 1B- Communication Skills for Lawyers

CASE STUDY

Before us is a case regarding the retrieval of an item that was lent to a hotel by an artist
who happens to be the deceased husband of my client.

Since 2011, the year of the death of my client’s husband, the painting which was lent to
the hotel has not been given back by the latter. The matter was brought to the point that my client
had to file a case against the hotel and its management in 2016 for specific performance to get
back the painting. However, the situation had been worsened after a fire partially burned the
hotel together with the disputed painting. This unfortunate event prompted the hotel to ask the
court to dismiss my client’s case against it because the fire destroyed/burned the painting in
dispute.

We assign different issues on the part of my client:

I. Can my client claim damages for the unretrieved painting that was burned?
II. What are the possible causes of action?

My client, as the compulsory heir to her husband, is the rightful owner of the painting after
the death or her husband in 2011. Under Article 887 paragraph 3 of the New Civil Code, it
provides that the widow or the widower is a compulsory heir of a deceased. Hence, when the
husband of my client died in 2011, succession came into play and automatically transmitted the
property to her ownership. Given this, she has the legal capacity to claim damages for the failure
of the hotel to give back the property.

In this case, my client has two possible causes of action.

The first cause of action is the contractual liability of the hotel to the artist. However it must
be noted that the contents of the contract between the hotel and my client’s husband must be
ascertained. If the contract states that the property must be returned after a specific period or
upon the death of the artist, the hotel is liable for breach of contract for failure to give back the
painting, thus give rise for my client to claim for damages. Also, as provided by Article 1172 of
the New Civil Code, responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of
obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the
circumstances. The fault of negligence is caused by the omission of such diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons of
the time and of the place. In this case, diligence is required on the part of the hotel to protect the
lent property (Good Father Doctrine, Article 1173 paragraph 2, NCC). Furthermore it is provided
in Articles 1998 – 2002 of the same code, the responsibility of hotels and inn-keepers regarding
property introduced to them. Since the hotel as a bailee is in bad faith because of failure to return
the object even after the accomplishment of the use for which the commodatum has been
constituted, the hotel is liable for the loss of the thing, even if it should be through a fortuitous
event (Article 1942 paragraph 3, NCC).

The second possible cause of action is on quasi-delict. As provided in Article 2176 of the
New Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this chapter. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is an important factor that my client
can consider. The doctrine as translated means, the thing speaks for itself. Under this doctrine, if
a thing is with someone, it is presumed that the person also has the liability. Following this,
because the hotel has the painting with them as lent by the deceased husband of my client, the
former is presumed to have the liability. Since the painting was destroyed by fire that occurred in
the hotel, the hotel’s management is then liable for the damages received by my client. A
possible recourse that the hotel may take to excuse them from liability is to prove that the fire
that caused the destruction of the disputed property is a fortuitous event as provided in Article
1174 of the New Civil Code that reads, except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when
the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
those events which, could not be forseen, or which, though forseen, where inevitable. However
this argument is untenable. It has been stated in the case of Sps. Africa vs. Caltex Philippines
(1996) that fire is not considered a fortuitous event as it arises almost invariably from some act
of man. With this being set forth, liability of the hotel is not absolved especially because there is
bad faith on the part of the hotel not to return the disputed property to my client.

Our party firmly believes that the court will find merit in our case and would not leave my
client to no possible remedy or recourse especially with the findings of negligence on the part of
the hotel.