BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
  • About
  • Articles
  • LAW
  • CPA REVIEW

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


GO VS COURT OF APPEALS  [ G.R. No. 114791, May 29, 1997 ]

8/25/2019

0 Comments

 
​SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 114791, May 29, 1997 ]
 
NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, PETITIONERS, VS.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HERMOGENES ONG AND JANE C. ONG, RESPONDENTS. 
D E C I S I O N

ROMERO, J.:
No less than the Constitution commands us to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family.[1] In our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the succeeding years.

It is in this light that we narrate the following undisputed facts:

Private respondents spouses Hermogenes and Jane Ong were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City. The video coverage of the wedding was provided by petitioners at a contract price of P1,650.00. Three times thereafter, the newlyweds tried to claim the video tape of their wedding, which they planned to show to their relatives in the United States where they were to spend their honeymoon, and thrice they failed because the tape was apparently not yet processed. The parties then agreed that the tape would be ready upon private respondents’ return.

When private respondents came home from their honeymoon, however, they found out that the tape had been erased by petitioners and therefore, could no longer be delivered.

Furious at the loss of the tape which was supposed to be the only record of their wedding, private respondents filed on September 23, 1981 a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City. After a protracted trial, the court a quo rendered a decision, to wit:
 “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby granted:

1.       Ordering the rescission of the agreement entered into between plaintiff Hermogenes Ong and defendant Nancy Go;

2.       Declaring defendants Alex Go and Nancy Go jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs Hermogenes Ong and Jane C. Ong for the following sums:

a)           P450.00, the down payment made at contract time;

b)           P75,000.00, as moral damages;

c)           P20,000.00, as exemplary damages;

d)           P5,000.00, as attorney’s fees; and

e)           P2,000.00, as litigation expenses;

Defendants are also ordered to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”
Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14, 1993, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the evidence they presented to prove that they acted only as agents of a certain Pablo Lim and, as such, should not have been held liable. In addition, they aver that there is no evidence to show that the erasure of the tape was done in bad faith so as to justify the award of damages.[2]

The petition is not meritorious.

Petitioners claim that for the video coverage, the cameraman was employed by Pablo Lim who also owned the video equipment used. They further assert that they merely get a commission for all customers solicited for their principal.[3]

This contention is primarily premised on Article 1883 of the Civil Code which states thus:
“ART. 1883.  If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the principal.

In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.

xxx                                                                        xxx                                                                               xxx”
Petitioners’ argument that since the video equipment used belonged to Lim and thus the contract was actually entered into between private respondents and Lim is not deserving of any serious consideration. In the instant case, the contract entered into is one of service, that is, for the video coverage of the wedding. Consequently, it can hardly be said that the object of the contract was the video equipment used. The use by petitioners of the video equipment of another person is of no consequence.

It must also be noted that in the course of the protracted trial below, petitioners did not even present Lim to corroborate their contention that they were mere agents of the latter. It would not be unwarranted to assume that their failure to present such a vital witness would have had an adverse result on the case.[4]

As regards the award of damages, petitioners would impress upon this Court their lack of malice or fraudulent intent in the erasure of the tape. They insist that since private respondents did not claim the tape after the lapse of thirty days, as agreed upon in their contract, the erasure was done in consonance with consistent business practice to minimize losses.[5]

We are not persuaded.

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, it is contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their wedding; the fact that private respondents filed a case against petitioners belies such assertion. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the video tape. Considering that private respondents were about to leave for the United States, they took care to inform petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon their return two months later. Thus, the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified.

In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that “those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who is any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.”

In the instant case, petitioners and private respondents entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the former undertook to cover the latter’s wedding and deliver to them a video copy of said event. For whatever reason, petitioners failed to provide private respondents with their tape. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of contravening their obligation to said private respondents and are thus liable for damages.

The grant of actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P450.00 is justified, as reimbursement of the downpayment paid by private respondents to petitioners.[6]

Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because this case is not among those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction that liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations, that is, the act which violates the contract may also constitute a quasi-delict.[7] Consequently, moral damages are recoverable for the breach of contract which was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, oppresive or abusive.[8]

Petitioners’ act or omission in recklessly erasing the video coverage of private respondents’ wedding was precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents had to undergo.

As the appellate court aptly observed:

“Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that the event therein recorded — a wedding which in our culture is a significant milestone to be cherished and remembered — could no longer be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in the amount of P75,000.00, which was a great reduction from plaintiffs’ demand in the complaint, in compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the circumstances could be awarded as allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218 of the Civil Code.”[9]

Considering the attendant wanton negligence committed by petitioners in the case at bar, the award of exemplary damages by the trial court is justified[10] to serve as a warning to all entities engaged in the same business to observe due diligence in the conduct of their affairs.

The award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are likewise proper, consistent with Article 2208[11] of the Civil Code.

Finally, petitioner Alex Go questions the finding of the trial and appellate courts holding him jointly and severally liable with his wife Nancy regarding the pecuniary liabilities imposed. He argues that when his wife entered into the contract with private respondent, she was acting alone for her sole interest.[12]

We find merit in this contention. Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. In the instant case, we are convinced that it was only petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with private respondent. Consequently, we rule that she is solely liable to private respondents for the damages awarded below, pursuant to the principle that contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them.[13]

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September 14, 1993 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Alex Go is absolved from any liability to private respondents and that petitioner Nancy Go is solely liable to said private respondents for the judgment award. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.


[1] Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.

[2] Rollo, pp. 15-23.

[3] Ibid., p. 7.

[4] Section 3(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states, "(t)hat evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced."

[5] Rollo, p. 19.

[6] Article 2200, Civil Code of the Philippines.

[7] PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines, V, 1990, pp. 995-996, Singson v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117 (1968).

[8] TOLENTINO, COMMENTARIES & JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V, 1995, p. 656.

[9] Rollo, p. 37.

[10] Article 2232, Civil Code of the Philippines.

[11] "ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1)        When exemplary damages are awarded;

xxx         xxx         xxx"

[12] Rollo, p. 23.

[13] Article 1311, Civil Code of the Philippines.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Copyright Notice
Copyright © – 2020, All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer
This  project primarily designed to assist students of law  and accounting in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law/accounting degree nor in passing the Bar/Board Exams. We makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided.
The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. We gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. We also reserves the right to further improve, add, modify, or remove content with or without prior announcements.
This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. These materials are owned by such users and of their sole responsibility. While we may review user-published content, please do not assume that content you are accessing has been reviewed or curated. You may report abusive content through the listed contact details.
We does not guarantee against any loss or damage caused by third persons, delays, interruptions, unavailability, or by the termination of its Services.
We reserves the right to amend the terms and policies for its Services.

Terms of Service
By using our Services, you are agreeing to these terms. Please read them carefully.
Access our Services only through the interface and instructions provided. Do not misuse the Services, or use them in such ways that may interfere their availability, or in ways that may cause discredit to you, your school, or your profession.
These terms do not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights to the content you access on our Services. Do not use content from our Services other than for personal purposes unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law. Do not remove, obscure, or alter any legal notices and attributions displayed in or along with our Services.
We may send you service announcements, administrative messages, and other information. You may opt out of some of those communications.
Our Services are designed to be accessible on mobile devices. Do not use such Services in a way that distracts you and prevents you from obeying traffic or safety laws.
We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with these terms and policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct.

Privacy
Some services require you to login or register with minimal personal information this site.
Collected Information
Collected information includes user name, email address, Facebook ID and photo. The user may also optionally provide school, year level, BAR year, profession, office, address, and other information which may assist in improving our Services.
Uses of the Information
The collected information will only be used in connection with the use or for the improvement of our Services.
Users Created Content
Content created by users are published and shared for public use. Published content is always attributed to the author through his user account. A user may remain anonymous by changing his "display name" under his profile.
Data Analytics
We conducts data analytics for the improvement of the usability and design of our Services and the user experience. These may include but not limited to tracking time spent on the site, services availed, number of contents created or shared.

Content
Our Services allow you to create casebooks, digests, outlines, notes, and other content. You retain ownership of intellectual property rights that you hold in that content.
When you create content through our Services, you give us (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example: your list of cases, digests, and outlines in your casebooks).
Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.
We reserves the right to review your published content and may remove materials that are offensive, abusive, of no value, or not in line with the purpose of our Services. The amount of content or materials that you publish may be limited by us.
We also used cookies in our website.

Contact Us
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
  • About
  • Articles
  • LAW
  • CPA REVIEW