G.R. No. 32465 & G.R. No. 32466, December 20, 1930

LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JANUARIO DE LOS REYES, defendant-appellee.
RAMON BARTOLAZO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

La Sociedad Dalisay, an industrial partnership, operated a warehouse in Santa Rosa, Laguna, where it stored palay belonging to various depositors. On May 20, 1923, a fire broke out in the warehouse. At the time, there were thousands of cavanes of palay inside, with an additional 568 cavanes stored outside. From the fire, 1,052 cavanes inside the warehouse and all 568 cavanes outside were saved. Multiple depositors, including Ramon Bartolazo and Januario de los Reyes, filed actions against Dalisay and against each other to recover their palay or its value, alleging Dalisay’s liability for the loss. The trial court consolidated the cases. It held Dalisay liable to the depositors for the palay lost in the fire, ordering it to deliver the proportionate share of 3,572 cavanes (or its value) to the depositors, and ordered Januario de los Reyes (who had sold some of the saved palay) to turn over the net proceeds of P2,238.98 to Dalisay, from which his own share could be deducted. Dalisay appealed, arguing it was not negligent and should not be liable for the loss.

ISSUE

Is La Sociedad Dalisay, as a depositary, liable to the depositors for the palay lost in the fire, in the absence of proof that the fire was due to its fault or negligence?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, absolving Dalisay from liability for the palay destroyed by the fire. The Court held that Dalisay, as a depositary, is only liable for the loss of the thing deposited if it is proved that such loss was due to its fraud or negligence. Here, the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the fire was intentional or caused by the negligence of Dalisay or its manager. The legal presumption is that every person takes ordinary care of his own concerns and is innocent of wrong. Since the depositors failed to overcome this presumption and prove negligence, Dalisay is not liable for the destroyed palay. Dalisay’s obligation is limited to returning only the palay actually saved from the fire. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the net proceeds of the saved palay (P2,238.98) held by Januario de los Reyes be delivered in full to Dalisay, which must then distribute this amount proportionately among the depositors. The claims for damages against Ramon Bartolazo for a preliminary attachment were denied for lack of sufficient evidence.