Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
i. LAW (1158)
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-26002 October 31, 1969
ABELARDO BAUTISTA and ROBERTO TAN TING, petitioners-appellees, vs. FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., HONORABLE CESAR C. CRUZ, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal and JESUS BAUTISTA, Deputy Sheriff of Manila as Special Sheriff, respondents-appellants. SANCHEZ, J.: Respondents-appellants seek to overturn the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal of January 6, 1966 granting petitioners-appellees' petition for relief from judgment, setting aside the July 23, 1965 decision of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal, in Civil Case 1365 and ordering a new trial. The background facts are as follows: On September 15, 1964, the Ford truck of petitioner Roberto Tan Ting driven by Abelardo Bautista, the other petitioner, and the Volkswagen delivery panel truck owned by respondent Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. (hereinafter called Borromeo) were involved in a traffic accident along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. In said traffic accident, Quintin Delgado, a helper in Borromeo's delivery panel truck, sustained injuries which resulted in his instantaneous death. Borromeo had to pay Delgado's widow the sum of P4,444 representing the compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses due Delgado under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On June 17, 1965, upon the averment that the said vehicular accident was caused by petitioners' negligence, Borromeo started suit in the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal to recover from petitioners the compensation and funeral expenses it paid to the widow of Quintin Delgado.1 At the scheduled hearing of the case on July 23, 1965, neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared. Borromeo was thus allowed to present its evidence ex parte. On the same day, July 23, 1965, the municipal court rendered judgment in favor of Borromeo and against the petitioners in the principal sum of P4,444, and P500 attorney's fees, and costs. Respondents aver that this judgment has been executed and satisfied. On August 6, 1965, petitioners received copy of the municipal court's decision.
Page | 1 Shaney
Page | 2 Shaney
Page | 4 Shaney
DIGEST Abelardo Bautista and Roberto Tan Ting vs. Federico O. Borromeo, Inc., Hon. Cesar C. Cruz, Judge of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal and Jesus Bautista, Deputy Sheriff of Manila as Special Sheriff G.R. No. L-26002, October 31, 1969 SANCHEZ, L: Facts: The truck of petitioner Roberto Tan Ting driven by Abelardo Bautista, the other petitioner, and the Volkswagen delivery panel truck owned by respondent Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. were involved in a traffic accident along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. In said traffic accident, Quintin Delgado, a helper in Borromeo's delivery panel truck, sustained injuries which resulted in his instantaneous death. Borromeo had to pay Delgado's widow the sum of P4,444 representing the compensation (death benefit) and funeral expenses due Delgado under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Upon the averment that the said vehicular accident was caused by petitioners' negligence, Borromeo started suit to recover from petitioners the compensation and funeral expenses it paid to the widow of Quintin Delgado. At the scheduled hearing, neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared. Borromeo was thus allowed to present its evidence ex parte. On the same day, the municipal court rendered judgment in favor of Borromeo and against the petitioners in the principal sum of P4,444, and P500 attorney's fees, and costs.
Page | 5 Shaney
Page | 7 Shaney
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4089 January 12, 1909
TORRES, J.: On the 23rd of November, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a physician residing in Cebu, filed a complaint against Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella setting forth that on or about the 13th of October of said year, at night, the plaintiff was called to the house of the defendants, situated in San Nicolas, and that upon arrival he was requested by them to render medical assistance to their daughter-in-law who was about to give birth to a child; that therefore, and after consultation with the attending physician, Page | 8 Shaney
Page | 9 Shaney
Case Digest on PELAYO vs. LAURON (Mutual Support) Facts: Oct. 13, 1906, nighttime Arturo Pelayo, a physician based in Cebu, was called to the house of Marcelo Lauron & Juana Abella (defendants) in San Nicolas. Their daughter-in-law was about to give birth & they requested him to render medical assistance. Since it was a difficult birth, he had to perform a surgery to remove the fetus using forceps. He also removed the afterbirth. He finished all of these until the following morning. He visited the patient several times the following day. Just & equitable value for the services he rendered: P500.00. Without any good reason, defendants refused to pay Page | 11 Shaney
SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 162084. June 28, 2005] APRIL MARTINEZ, FRITZ DANIEL MARTINEZ and MARIA MARTINEZ, petitioners, vs. RODOLFO G. MARTINEZ, respondent. DECISION Page | 12 Shaney OLIVIA
2) To pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 a month starting July 17, date of last demand until he vacates the same; 3) 4) To pay the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorneys fees; and Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[16] The trial court declared that the spouses Martinez had substantially complied with Article 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines[17] based on the allegations of the complaint and the appended certification to file action issued by the barangay captain.
Page | 14 Shaney
Page | 16 Shaney
Page | 18 Shaney
FACTS:
Daniel Martinez Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land. The former executed a last will and testament directing the subdivision of the property into 3 lots bequeathed to each of his sons namely Rodolfo, Manolo (designated as administrator of the estate), and Daniel Jr. In October 1997, Daniel Sr. died. Rodolfo then found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on September 1996 where it appears that the land was sold to Manolo and his wife Lucila and was also issued to them. Rodolfo filed a complaint against his brother Manolo and sister-in-law Lucila for the annulment of the deed of sale and cancellation of the TCT. Spouses wrote Rodolfo demanding him to vacate the property which the latter ignored and refused to do so. This prompted the spouses to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against Rodolfo. This matter was referred to the barangay for conciliation and settlement but none was reached. It was alleged in the position paper of the spouses that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made but the same proved futile.
ISSUE: WON spouses Martinez complied with the requirements of Art 151 of the Family Code.
HELD: No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but the same have failed. Lucila Martinez, the respondents sister-in-law was one of the plaintiffs in the case at bar. The petitioner is not a member of the same family as that of her deceased husband and the respondent. Her relationship with the respondent is not one of those enumerated in Article 150. It should also be noted that the petitioners were Page | 19 Shaney
(Other Martinez vs Martinez) DIGEST Facts: Pedro Martinez Ilustre brought an action against his father Francisco for a declaration of prodigality against him. Pedro alleges that his father has been dissipating and squandering his estate by making donations to his 2nd wife, as well as the administration of his estate. The father denied such allegations, instead he posted that his son was actually mismanaging and misappropriating the property of the estate. Issue: What constitutes prodigality? Held: Since prodigality is not defined in our law, it may be inferred that the acts of prodigality must show a morbid state of bind and a disposition to spend, waste, and lessen the estate to such an extent as is likely to expose the family to want of support, or to deprive the forced heirs of their undisposable part of the estate. The testimony of the plaintiff was insufficient to support his allegations against his father. There was no evidence to show his father has been transferring by sale or mortgage any property, which will reflect in the city record of public deeds. The court found the defendant is far from being prodigal, and is still in the full exercise of his faculties and still possess the industry, thrift and ability in managing the estate.
Page | 20 Shaney
ii.
VICENTE PEREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIO POMAR, Agent of the Compaia General de Tabacos, defendant-appellant. Francisco Dominguez for appellant. Ledesma, Sumulong and Quintos for appellee.
TORRES, J.: In a decision dated February 9, 1903, the judge of the Sixth Judicial District, deciding a case brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for the recovery of wages due and unpaid, gave judgment against the latter for the sum of $600 and the costs of suit, less the sum of $50, Mexican. On August 27, 1902, Don Vicente Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint, which was amended on the 17th of January of this year, asking that the court determine the amount due the plaintiff, at the customary rate of compensation for interpreting in these Islands, for services rendered in the Tabacalera Company, and that, in view of the circumstances of the case, judgment be rendered in his favor for such sum. The complaint also asked that the defendant be condemned to the payment of damages in the sum of $3,200, gold, together with the costs of suit. In this complaint it was alleged that Don Eugenio Pomar, as general agent of the Compaia General de Tabacos in the said province, verbally requested the plaintiff on the 8th of December, 1901, to act as interpreter between himself and the military authorities; that after the date mentioned the plaintiff continued to render such services up to and including May 31, 1902; that he had accompanied the defendant, Pomar, during that time at conferences between the latter and the colonel commanding the local garrison, and with various officers and doctors residing in the capital, and at conferences
Page | 21 Shaney
Page | 22 Shaney
Page | 23 Shaney
In contracts the will of the contracting parties is law, this being a legal doctrine based upon the provisions of articles 1254, 1258, 1262, 1278, 1281, 1282, and 1289 of the Civil Code. If it is a fact sufficiently proven that the defendant, Pomar, on various occasions consented to accept an interpreter's services, rendered in his behalf and not gratuitously, it is but just that he should pay a reasonable remuneration therefor, because it is a well-known principle of law that no one should be permitted to enrich himself to the damage of another. With respect to the value of the services rendered on different occasions, the most important of which was the first, as it does not appear that any salary was fixed upon by the parties at the time the services were accepted, it devolves upon the court to determine, upon the evidence presented, the value of such services, taking into consideration the few occasions on which they were rendered. The fact that no fixed or determined consideration for the rendition of the services was agreed upon does not necessarily involve a violation of the provisions of article 1544 of the Civil Code, because at the time of the agreement this consideration was capable of being made certain. The discretionary power of the court, conferred upon it by the law, is also supported by the decisions of the supreme court of Spain, among which may be cited that of October 18, 1899, which holds as follows: "That as stated in the article of the Code cited, which follows the provisions of law 1, title 8, of the fifth partida, the contract for lease of services is one in which one of the parties undertakes to make some thing or to render some service to the other for a certain price, the existence of such a price being understood, as this court has held not only when the price has been expressly agreed upon but also when it may be determined by the custom and frequent use of the place in which such services were rendered." No exception was taken to the judgment below by the plaintiff on account of the rejection of his claim for damages. The decision upon this point is, furthermore, correct. Upon the supposition that the recovery of the plaintiff should not exceed 200 Mexican pesos, owing to the inconsiderable number of times he acted as interpreter, it is evident that the contract thus implicitly entered into was not required to be in writing and that therefore it does not fall within article 1280 of the Civil Code; nor is it included within the provisions of section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as this innominate contract is not covered by that section. The contract of lease of services is not included in any of the cases expressly designated by that section of the procedural law, as affirmed by the appellant. The interpretation of the other articles of the Code alleged to have been infringed has also been stated fully in this opinion. For the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that judgment should be rendered against Don Eugenio Pomar for the payment to the plaintiff of the sum of 200 Mexican pesos, from which will be deducted the sum of 50 pesos is made as to the costs of this instance. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed in so far as it agrees with this opinion, and reversed in so far as it may be in conflict therewith. Judgment will be entered accordingly twenty days after this decision is filed. Separate Opinion MCDONOUGH, J., dissenting:
Page | 24 Shaney
G.R. No. L-29203 July 26, 1971 MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. REPARATIONS COMMISSION or REPARATION MISSION, defendant-appellee. Rafael Dinglasan for plaintiff-appellant. Panfilo M. Manguera and Jober Ayura for defendant-appellee.
FERNANDO, J.: Decisive of the crucial issue posed by this appeal from a decision of the lower court is the applicability of the well-settled principle that a statute should be considered as entering into and forming part of a contract. Plaintiff Maritime Company of the Philippines, now appellant, would deny that it is controlling in its suit to hold defendant Reparations Commission, now appellee, liable for the freight charges as the consignee of reparations goods, notwithstanding that under Section 11 of the Reparations Act, 1 ocean freight and other expenses incident to importation shall be paid by the end-user and not by such agency. That defendant is exempt from such obligation is further stressed by the concluding sentence thereof: "Nothing herein shall be construed as exempting the end-user from paying in full all the necessary costs, charges and expenses incident to the application for and the procurement, production delivery and acquisition, of, the goods concerned." It could not have been entirely unexpected therefore for the lower court to reach the conclusion that it had no choice on the matter in view of the explicit character of such statutory language which must be read into the contract of shipment. So it held in dismissing
Page | 25 Shaney
(the title provided in the outline (NHA vs CA) but with different GR no.) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 156437 March 1, 2004
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 26, 2001,1 and its Resolution Page | 30 Shaney
Page | 32 Shaney
(the GR no in the outline but not the same title of the case which is NHA vs CA) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila
Page | 34 Shaney
R.V. MARZAN FREIGHT, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SHIELAS MANUFACTURING, INC., respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49905 affirming with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Pasig, Branch 154, in Civil Case No. 61644. THE FACTS The petitioner RV Marzan Freight, Inc., owned and operated a customs-bonded warehouse located at the Bachrach Corporation Building, where it accepted all forms of goods and merchandise for storage and safekeeping. Private respondent Shielas Manufacturing, Inc., on the other hand, was a corporation organized and existing under Philippines laws, and engaged in the garment business. Philippine Fire and Marine Insurance Corporation (Philfire) issued Insurance Policy No. F-8952/4358-HO dated December 11, 19893 in favor of the petitioner, covering its warehouse as well as "stocks in trade of every kind and description usual to the warehouse operation of the Assured and/or other interest that may appear during the currency of this policy whilst contained in the building, known as BACHRACH CORP." On April 12, 1989, raw materials consigned to the private respondent covered by Invoice No. TG-891254 arrived in the Philippines from Keelung, Taiwan on board the vessel SS World Lion V-302W owned by Sea-Land Service, Inc. from its supplier, Tricon Enterprises Ltd. The materials were valued at US$32,006.93.5 The Bureau of Customs treated the raw materials as subject to ordinary import taxes and were not immediately released to the private respondent. Moreover, the consignee failed to file the requisite import entry6 and failed to claim the cargo.7 In a Letter8 to the Office of the District Collector of the Bureau of Customs dated July 24, 1989, Sea-Land Service Inc. authorized the petitioner to take delivery of Container No. SEAU-462597 consigned to the private respondent for stripping and safekeeping. In a Letter9 addressed to Bureau of Customs District Collector Emma M. Rosqueta dated September 11, 1989, the International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Page | 35 Shaney
Page | 36 Shaney
Page | 37 Shaney
Page | 43 Shaney
Page | 44 Shaney
Page | 47 Shaney
Page | 48 Shaney