Taylor vs Tieng 43 Phil 873
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
This
case comes by appeal from the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, in
a case where the court awarded to the plaintiff the sum of P300, as damages for
breach of contract. The plaintiff appeals on the ground that the amount of
damages awarded is inadequate; while the defendant Uy Tieng Piao appeals on the
ground that he is not liable at all. The judgment having been heretofore
affirmed by us in a brief opinion, we now avail ourselves of the occasion of
the filing of a motion to rehear by the attorneys for the plaintiff to modify
the judgment in a slight measure and to state more fully the reasons underlying
our decision.
FACTS
On
December 12, 1918, the plaintiff contracted his services to Tan Liuan and Co.,
as superintendent of an oil factory which the latter contemplated establishing
in this city. The period of the contract extended over two years from the date
mentioned; and the salary was to be at the rate of P600 per month during the
first year and P700 per month during the second, with electric light and water
for domestic consumption, and a residence to live in, or in lieu thereof P60
per month.
At
the time this agreement was made the machinery for the contemplated factory had
not been acquired, though ten expellers had been ordered from the United
States. Within six months, the machinery did not arrive in the city of Manila;
nor was other equipment necessary for the establishment of the factory at any
time provided by the defendants. The reason for this does not appear with
certainty, but a preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that the
defendants, in the first months of 1919, seeing that the oil business no longer
promised large returns, either cancelled the order for the machinery from
choice or were unable to supply the capital necessary to finance the project.
On
June 28, 1919, availing themselves in part of the option given in the clause
above quoted, the defendants communicated in writing to the plaintiff the fact
that they had decided to rescind the contract, effective June 30th then
current, upon which date he was discharged. The plaintiff thereupon instituted
this action to recover damages in the amount of P13,000, covering salary and
perquisites due and to become due under the contract.
ISSUE
WON
the Court of First Instance erred in rejecting the plaintiff's claim in so far
as damages are sought for the period after the expiration of the first six
months.
RULING
No,
the Court of First Instance did not err in rejecting the plaintiff’s claim in
so far as damages are sougt for the period after the expiration of the first
six month.
Under
the law (Art 1186), the condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor
voluntary prevents its fulfilment.
In
this case, SC viewed that there is nothing in the provision which makes it
necessary for us to warp the language used by the parties from its natural
meaning and thereby in legal effect to restrict the words "for any
reason," as used in the contract, to mean "for any reason not having
its origin in the will or acts of the defendants." To impose this
interpretation upon those words would in our opinion constitute an
unjustifiable invasion of the power of the parties to establish the terms which
they deem advisable. If it were apparent, or could be demonstrated, that the
defendants were under a positive obligation to cause the machinery to arrive in
Manila, they would of course be liable, in the absence of affirmative proof
showing that the nonarrival of the machinery was due to some cause not having
its origin in their own act or will. The contract, however, expresses no such
positive obligation, and its existence cannot be implied in the fact of
stipulation, defining the conditions under which the defendants can cancel the
contract
No comments:
Post a Comment