Shoemaker v. La tondena himself to fulfill under the modified oral contract.

It is also
G.R. No. L-45667
Facts:
 Shoemaker worked as a technical manager for one of the
factories of La Tondena wherein Shoemaker would monthly
receive 1,500.
 Palanca, president and stockholder of LT, modified
shoemakers contract in which:
o LT would deduct 200 php from his monthly salary
 Same would be paid to him should the
conditions of the business improve or upon the
termination of the contract.
o Shoemaker would not take his 6 months
leave/vacation during the year under his contract
 La tondena actually deducted amounts and Shoemaker in
good faith and trusting in the understanding and agreement
between the parties continued to render his services during
the entire year the services required and additional duties.
 La Tondena refused to pay the total amount of deducted
salary
 LC dismissed shoemakers petition: Shoemaker did not have
cause of action, on the ground that this is an oral contract as
such unenforceable.
admitted that La tondena benefited from the fulfillment of said
obligations by the shoemaker. Equity and justice demands that LT
cannot avoid its own obligations assumed under the same modified
oral contract, for to allow it to do so under the protection of the
statute of frauds would make of the latter a shield of and not a
protection against frauds. It aims to prevent not protect fraud.
Where one party to an oral contract has performed his part of the
agreement that it would be perpetuating a fraud upon him to allow
the other party to repudiate the contract and to set up the statute of
frauds in justification thereof, equity will regard the case as being
removed from the operation of the statute and will enforce the
contract by decreeing specific performance of it, or by granting other
appropriate relief.
Doctrine:
 In an oral contract which, by its terms, is not to be performed
within one year from the execution thereof, one of the
contracting parties has complied within the year with the
obligations imposed on him by said contract, the other
party cannot avoid the fulfillment of those incumbent on
him under the same contract by invoking the statute of
frauds.

Issue: Whether or not the oral contract falls within the statute of
frauds

Held:

No. the facts alleged constitute a cause of action.

In the present case it is hypothetically admitted that Shoemaker

complied within the year with all the obligations he had bound