Case:

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v. Gregorio de la Pea (26 PHIL. 144),
Nov. 21, 1913
FACTS

ISSUE/S
LAWS

PETITIONER-APPELLEE: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Gregorio de la Pea (administrator of the estate of
Father Agustin de la Pea
PONENTE: Moreland, J.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro brought action against the appellant, Gregorio
de la Pea, who was the administrator of the property of the deceased Fr. Agustin
de la Pea (deceased- 1900), to recover the sum of P6,641 (Mexican currency) in
the Court of First Instance in Iloilo.

The amount of money in question, was collected by the deceased priest, as an
authorized representative to collect fees for the construction of a leper hospital.
The appellee was a trustee of such charitable bequest. The same amount was
deposited, along with Fr. de la Peas personal funds, in the Hong Kong and
Shanghai Bank of Iloilo.

During the war of the revolution, Fr. de la Pea was arrested by the military
authorities as a political prisoner. His bank funds were confiscated as the military
authorities thought that the funds were for revolutionary purposes.

The CFI of Iloilo awarded the plaintiff P6,641 with interest at the legal rate from the
beginning of action, thus this appeal.
Whether Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the bequest money by placing it
in his personal bank account?
Article 1094 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): A person obliged to give something
is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a
family.

Article 1163 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): Every person obliged to give
something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of a good
father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another
standard of care. (1094a)

Article 1105 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): No one shall be liable for events
which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable,
with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which
the obligation so declares

Article 1174 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): Except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)

HOLDINGS

No. Fr. de la Pea and his trustee (or estate administrator), Gregorio de la Pea is
not liable for the loss of the bequest money.

Fr. de la Peas liability is determined by portions in the Civil Code that relate to
obligations (Book 4, Title 1.) and the New Civil Code (Book 4, Title 1.)

Although Article 1094 of the Civil Code, now, Article 1163 (The New Civil Code)
discusses that a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with
the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family, it also states that no one
shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been
foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in
the law or those in which the obligation so declares (Article 1105, the Civil Code and
Article 1174, The New Civil Code).

The precise question is not about negligence as we cannot measure nor say if Fr. de
la Pea was indeed negligent by depositing the donated funds in his bank. We
cannot also do the same if he just left the funds in his home or if he deposited the
amount in a separate account as a trustee. No law prohibited him from depositing
the amount as he did and no law changed his responsibility because of that act.
While one who is under obligation to give a thing is obliged, when he foresees
events which may be dangerous to his trust, to exhaust all means and measures to
elude or, if unavoidable, to mitigate the effects of those events, the Supreme Court
held that in choosing between two means equally legal, with two possible same
repercussions, making him negligent in selecting either, Fr. de la Pea was not
responsible for the loss of the amount in question.

The judgment was reversed.