Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
ROBERTO C. SICAM and AGENCIA G.R. NO. 159617
de R.C. SICAM, INC.,
Petitioners,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
NACHURA, JJ.
LULU V. JORGE and CESAR
JORGE, Promulgated:
Respondents. August 8, 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------x
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by
Roberto
C. Sicam,
Jr.
(petitioner Sicam)
Anent the first assigned error, petitioners point out that the
CAs finding that petitioner Sicam is personally liable for the
loss of the pawned jewelries is a virtual and uncritical
reproduction of the arguments set out on pp. 5-6 of the
Appellants brief.[10]
now
ask
for
the
dismissal
of
the
complaint against him simply on the mere allegation that
his pawnshop business is now incorporated. It is a
matter of defense, the merit of which can only be
reached after consideration of the evidence to be
presented in due course.[19]
bus, the risk of theft would have also been present; that
because of her relatively low position and pay, she was not
expected to have her own vehicle or to ride a taxicab; she did
not have a government assigned vehicle; that placing
the cellphone in a bag away from covetous eyes and holding
on to that bag as she did is ordinarily sufficient care of
a cellphone while traveling on board the LRT; that the
records did not show any specific act of negligence on her
part and negligence can never be presumed.
Unlike in the Cruz case, the robbery in this case
happened in petitioners' pawnshop and they were negligent
in not exercising the precautions justly demanded of a
pawnshop.
WHEREFORE, except for the insurance aspect, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2003 and
its Resolution dated August 8, 2003, are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 63-73; Penned by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis (ret.) and concurred in by Justices Sergio L. Pestao and Noel G. Tijam.
[10] Rollo, p. 7.
[11] Nuez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 107574, December 28, 1994, 239 SCRA 518, 526.
[12] Litonjua v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 148116, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 478, 489 citing Roble v. Arbasa, 414 Phil. 343 (2001).
[25] Mindex Resources Development Corporation v. Morillo, supra citing Tolentino, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Vol. IV, 1991 ed., p. 126, citing Sian v. Inchausti & Co., 22 Phil. 152 (1912); Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals,