Lopez Vito vs Tambunting, 33 Phil 226
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
These
proceedings were brought to recover from the defendant the sum of P2,000,
amount of the fees, which, according to the complaint, are owing for
professional medical services rendered by the plaintiff to a daughter of the
defendant from March 10 to July 15, 1913, which fees the defendant refused to
pay, notwithstanding the demands therefor made upon him by the plaintiff.
The
defendant denied the allegations of the complaint, and furthermore alleged that
the obligation which the plaintiff endeavored to compel him to fulfill was
already extinguished.
The court after discussing the matter
of the service rendered and after taking into account that the plaintiff, as
soon as he had finished rendering them, asked for compensation in the sum of
P700 only, and furthermore, holding that it was in no wise proven that, because
said amount was not paid the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the
defendant, by means of these proceedings, the sum of P2,000, held that the
reasonable value of said services could only be worth said P700.
The receipt signed by the plaintiff,
for P700, the amount of his fees he endeavored to collect from the defendant
after he had finished rendering the services in question (which receipt was
presented by the defendant at the trial as Exhibit 1) was in the latter's
possession, and this fact was alleged by him as proof that he had already paid
said fees to the plaintiff.
ISSUE
Whether or
not implied condonation can be legally presumed in the instant case?
RULING
No.
Article 1271
of the New Civil Code provides that the delivery of a private document
evidencing a credit, made voluntarily by the creditor to the debtor, implies
the renunciation of the action which the former had against the latter. And
article 1272 prescribes that whenever the private document in which the debt
appears is found in the possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the
creditor delivered it voluntarily, unless the contrary is proved.
In the
present case, it cannot be said that these circumstances concurred, inasmuch as
when the plaintiff sent the receipt to the defendant for the purpose of
collecting his fee, it was not his intention that that document should remain
in the possession of the defendant if the latter did not forthwith pay the
amount specified therein.
No comments:
Post a Comment