You are on page 1of 3

Song Fo and Co., vs. Hawaiian-Philippine Co.

to make the payments for the delivery of molasses After 3 days, Tita Payag delivered to the
Facts: Hawaiian-Philippine Co. got into a contract as shown in the documents presented by the jewelry shop one of Dra. Laos diamond
with Song Fo & Co. where it would deliver parties. earrings
molasses to the latter. Respondent Ma. Lourdes (Marilou) Sun
The Supreme Court said that Hawaiian-Philippine went on to dismount the diamond from
Hawaiian-Philippine Co. was able to deliver Co. does not have the right to rescind the contract. its original setting. Unsuccessful, she
55,006 gallons of molasses before the breach of It should be noted that the time of payment asked their goldsmith, Zenon Santos, to
contract. stipulated for in the contract should be treated as do it. Santos removed the diamond by
of the presence of the contract. There was only a twisting the setting with a pair of pliers,
SFC filed a complaint for breach of contract slight breach of contract when the payment was breaking the gem in the process
against Hawaiian-Philippine Co. and asked delayed for 20 days after which Hawaiian- Petitioner required the respondents to
P70,369.50. Hawaiian-Philippine Co. answered Philippine Co. accepted the payment of the replace the diamond with the same size
that there was a delay in the payment from Song overdue accounts and continued with the contract, and quality.
Fo & Co. and that Hawaiian-Philippine Co. has waiving its right to rescind the contract. The delay When they refused, the petitioner was
the right to rescind the contract due to that and in the payment of Song Fo & Co. was not such a forced to buy a replacement in the
claims it as a special defense. violation for the contract. amount of P30,000
Respondent Marilou Sun (manager of
The judgment of the trial court condemned (3) With regard to the third question, the first shop) admitted knowing Payag who came
Hawaiian-Philippine Co. to pay Song Fo & Co. a cause of action of Song Fo & Co. is based on the to Dingdings Jewelry Shop to avail of
total of P35,317.93, with legal interest from the greater expense to which it was put in being their services regarding a certain piece of
date of the presentation of the complaint, and with compelled to secure molasses from other sources jewelry. After a short conversation,
costs. to which Supreme Court ruled that P3,000 should Payag went inside the shop to see Santos
be paid by Hawaiian-Philippine Co. with legal When the precious stone was broken by
Issue: interest from October 2, 1923 until payment. Santos, Payag demanded P15,000 from
(1) Did Hawaiian-Philippine Co. agree to sell him. As the latter had no money, she
400,000 gallons of molasses or 300,000 gallons of The second cause of action was based on the lost turned to Marilou for reimbursement
molasses? profits on account of the breach of contract. apparently thinking that Marilou was the
Supreme Court said that Song Fo & Co. is not owner of the shop
(2) Had Hawaiian-Philippine Co. the right to entitled to recover anything under the second
Santos recalled that Payag requested him
rescind the contract of sale made with Song Fo & cause of action because the testimony of Mr. Song
to dismount what appeared to him was a
Co.? Heng will follow the same line of thought as that
sapphire. While clipping the setting with
of the trial court which in unsustainable and there the use of a small pair of pliers, the stone
(3) On the basis first, of a contract for 300,000 was no means for the court to find out what items
accidentally broke. Santos denied being
gallons of molasses, and second, of a contract make up the P14,000 of alleged lost profits.
an employee of Dingdings Jewelry Shop.
imprudently breached by Hawaiian-Philippine
Attempts to settle the controversy before
Co., what is the measure of damages?
the barangay lupon proved futile
Sarmiento v. Sps. Cabrido and Sun
petitioner filed a complaint for damages
Held: Dra. Virginia Lao, requested her to find
with the (MTCC) of Tagbilaran City
(1) Only 300,000 gallons of molasses was agreed somebody to reset a pair of diamond
which rendered a decision in favor of the
to by Hawaiian-Philippine Co. as seen in the earrings into two gold rings.
petitioner: ordering defendants to pay
documents presented in court. The language used Sarmiento sent a certain Tita Payag with
jointly and severally the amount of Thirty
with reference to the additional 100,000 gallons the pair of earrings to Dingdings Jewelry
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
was not a definite promise. Shop, owned and managed by respondent
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court
spouses Luis and Rose Cabrido, accepted
(2) With reference to the second question, doubt (RTC) of Tagbilaran City, Branch 3,
the job order for P400
has risen as to when Song Fo & Co. was supposed reversed the decision of the MTCC, thus
absolving the respondents of any or delay and those who in any manner defendant returned to the plaintiff some
responsibility contravene the tenor thereof, are liable of the missing parts, the interior cover
Finding no reversible error, the Court of for damages. The fault or negligence of and the P6.00
Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the obligor consists in the omission of plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by
the RTC that diligence which is required by the Freixas Business Machines, and the
the petitioner filed the instant petition for nature of the obligation and corresponds repair job cost him a total of P89.85,
review with the circumstances of the persons, of plaintiff commenced this action before
PETITIONER SARMIENTO: the time and of the place*** the City Court of Manila, demanding
dismounting of the diamond from its DECISION: petition is GRANTED. from the defendant the payment of
original setting was part of the obligation Private respondents Luis Cabrido and P90.00 as actual and compensatory
assumed by the private respondents under Rose Sun-Cabrido are hereby ordered to damages,
the contract of service. Thus, they should pay, jointly and severally, the amount DEFENDANT GONZALEZ: repair done
be held liable for damages arising from of P30,000 as actual damages and on the typewriter by Freixas Business
its breakage P10,000 as moral damages Machines with the total cost of P89.85
RESPONDENT: private respondents, should not, however, be fully chargeable
upheld by the RTC and the CA, is that Chavez v. Gonzalez against the defendant. The repair invoice,
their agreement with the petitioner was plaintiff delivered to the defendant, who Exhibit C, shows that the missing parts
for crafting two gold rings mounted with is a typewriter repairer, a portable had a total value of only P31.10.
diamonds only and did not include the typewriter for routine cleaning and SC ruled WHEREFORE, judgment is
dismounting of the said diamonds from servicing. hereby rendered ordering the defendant to
their original setting. Consequently, the defendant was not able to finish the job pay the plaintiff the sum of P31.10,
crux of the instant controversy is the after some time despite repeated Plaintiff appealed: court awarded only the
scope of the obligation assumed by the reminders made by the plaintiff, merely value of the missing parts of the
private respondents under the verbal gave assurances, but failed to comply typewriter, instead of the whole cost of
contract of service with the petitioner and with the same. labor and materials that went into the
denied assuming any obligation to defendant asked from the plaintiff the repair
dismount the diamonds from their sum of P6.00 for the purchase of spare According to Art. 1167, If a person
original settings parts, which amount the plaintiff gave to obliged to do something fails to do it, the
SC ruled: it is beyond doubt that Santos the defendant same shall be executed at his cost.This
acted negligently in dismounting the after getting exasperated with the delay same rule shall be observed if he does it
diamond from its original setting. It of the repair of the typewriter, the in contravention of the tenor of the
appears to be the practice of the trade to plaintiff went to the house of the obligation. Furthermore, it may be
use a miniature wire saw in dismounting defendant and asked for the return of the decreed that what has been poorly done
precious gems, such as diamonds, from typewriter be undone
their original settings; Santos employed a defendant delivered the typewriter in a Gonzalez argued: he is not liable at all,
pair of pliers in clipping the original wrapped package not even for the sum of P31.10, because
setting, thus resulting in breakage of the plaintiff examined the typewriter returned his contract with plaintiff- appellant did
diamond. The jewelry shop failed to to him by the defendant and found out not contain a period, so that plaintiff-
perform its obligation with the ordinary that the same was in shambles, with the appellant should have first filed a petition
diligence required by the circumstances; interior cover and some parts and screws for the court to fix the period, under
Its subsequent breakage in the hands of missing. Article 1197 of the Civil Code, within
Santos could only have been caused by plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant which the defendant-appellee was to
his negligence in using the wrong formally demanding the return of the comply with the contract before said
equipment missing parts, sum of P6.00 defendant-appellee could be held liable
***those who in the performance of their for breach of contract.
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence
SC says: Defendant cannot invoke months, for three months, the private demands from them the fulfillment of
Article 1197 of the Civil Code for he respondents failed to pay their rentals their obligation.
virtually admitted non-performance by because no collector came. The moment the petitioner extrajudicially
returning the typewriter that he was They then contacted the petitioner over demand the payment of the rentals,
obliged to repair in a nonworking the telephone as to where they should pay private respondents immediately
condition, with essential parts missing. their rentals. The petitioner then told answered their obligation by paying their
The fixing of a period would thus be a them that they would send a collector to arrearages of rentals to the petitioner.
mere formality and would serve no collect the rentals. It could not be said that they were in
purpose than to delay Private respondents waited but no default in the payment of their rentals as
DECISION: defendant-appellee collector came. the delay in paying the same was not
contravened the tenor of his obligation Petitioner then sent a letter to each of the imputable to them. Rather, it was
because he not only did not repair the private respondents demanding that they attributable to petitioner's omission or
typewriter but returned it in shambles, vacate the subject premises and to pay neglect to collect.
according to the appealed decision. For their arrearages within 15 days from the
such contravention, as appellant receipt thereof. NPC v. CA
contends, he is liable under Article 1167 With this, private respondents
of the Civil Code, jam quot, for the cost immediately upon the receipt of such
of executing the obligation in a proper demand, tendered their payments which
manner. The cost of the execution of the were accepted by the petitioner with the
obligation in this case should be the cost condition that the acceptance was
of the labor or service expended in the without prejudice to the filing of
repair of the typewriter, which is in the ejectment suit.
amount of P58.75. because the obligation For failure of the private respondents to
or contract was to repair it. vacate the premises as demanded,
In addition, the defendant-appellee is petitioner filed an ejectment suit against
likewise liable, under Article 1170 of the them.
Code, for the cost of the missing parts, in
the amount of P31.10, for in his ISSUE: Whether or not there was a delay
obligation to repair the typewriter he was of payment by the private respondents to
bound, but failed or neglected, to return it the petitioner considering that upon
in the same condition it was when he receipt of the demand letter, they
received it. immediately tendered their payments.

Cetus Development v. CA
Private respondents were the lessees of HELD: No. There was no failure yet on
the premises originally owned by Susana the part of the private respondents to pay
Realty. rents for three consecutive months.
The payments of the rentals were paid by It has been duly established that it has
them to a collector of the Susana Realty been customary for private
who went the premises monthly. respondents to pay their rentals
Susana Realty, however, sold the through a collector sent by the lessor.
property to petitioner Cetus Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides
Development, Inc. that those obliged to deliver or to do
The private respondents then continued something incur in delay from the time
to pay their monthly rentals to a collector the oblige judicially or extrajudicially
sent by the petitioner. In succeeding