Author: Marti

Gotesco vs. Chatto (1992)

Petition: 45 certiorari
Petitioner: Gotesco Investment
Respondent: Gloria and Delza Chatto
Ponente: Davide, Jr.
DOCTRINES:
Force Majeure as a defense must be proven. It does not
automatically set in when an accident such as a collapse of a
balcony ceiling happens.
According to Bouviere's definition of force majeure, the event must
be an accident caused by nature and which could not have been
prevented by foresight, pains, and care which is reasonably
expected.
FACTS:
1. The Chattos watched a movie at Superama, a Cinema of Gotesco. They
watched the movie "Dear Mother". The cinema was full. They took a
balcony seat.
2. They've only been there for a few minutes when THE BALCONY
CEILING COLLAPSED. They sustained injuries which were treated first
at FEU, then at UST. After which, their medicolegal certificate outline
their injuries with their recovery time of 2-4 weeks of complications do
not arise.
3.

However, Gloria, the Mother of Delza went to US to have her injuries

treated. She then sought reimbursement for expenses she and her
daughter incurred for treatment. Gotesco refused.

4. RTC ruled in favor of Chattos, saying that Gotesco was negligent in

maintaining the cinema balcony. Mr. Ong, Gotesco's architect testified that
after he had conducted the investigation, he found no reason why such
balcony would collapse. He attributed its collapse to force majeure. This was
overruled.
5. RTC awarded actual damages in amount of 49.5k, because that was
what was prayed for in the complaint, even if Gloria testified that she lost a
total of 51k. Moral damages of 10k and 75k were also awarded along with
20k attorney's fees.
6.

CA affirmed RTC. Hence this appeal.

ISSUES:
1. WoN the collapse was due to force majeure.

RULING + RATIO:
1. No, it was not due to force majeure.
The Court held that force majeure does not automatically apply when an
accident happens and the reason cannot be found. It must be proved
that the collapse was due to force majeure. Court cited four definitions
according to renowned sources:
Blackstone: Inevitable accident or casualty; an accident produced by
any physical cause which is irresistible; such as lightning. tempest, perils
of the sea, inundation, or earthquake; the sudden illness or death of a
person. (2 Blackstone's Commentaries, 122; Story in Bailments, sec. 25.)
Esriche: The event which we could neither foresee nor resist; as for
example, the lightning stroke, hail, inundation, hurricane, public enemy,
attack by robbers; Vis major est, says Cayo, ea quae consilio humano
neque provideri neque vitari potest. Accident and mitigating
circumstances.
Bouviere:Any accident due to natural cause, directly exclusively
without human intervention, such as could not have been prevented by
any kind of oversight, pains and care reasonably to have been expected.
(Law Reports, 1 Common Pleas Division, 423; Law Reports, 10
Exchequer, 255.)
Corkburn (a chief justice, on absolving a captain from liability): Uses
all the known means to which prudent and experienced captains
ordinarily have recourse, he does all that can be reasonably required of
him; and if, under such circumtances, he is overpowered by storm or
other natural agency, he is within the rule which gives immunity from the
effects of such vis major.
Since Mr. Ong, an architect who has not even passed his licensure exam
is not an engineer and could not explain what happened or what caused
such collapse, him being unable tp point to a physical irresistable force,
he cannot claim force majeure.
(It is important to note that the court applied res ipsa loquitur, but did not
expressly say res ipsa. It just said that balcony ceilings, which are fully
under the control of the mall, don't just collapse if no one was negligent.)

Author: Marti
It then cited Bouviere saying that force majeure must be an event which
reasonable care could not have prevented. There being no showing of
that reasonable care, Gotesco's defense falls.

DISPOSITION: Petition denied. Award of damages sustained.