Velez vs. Ramas, 40 Phil. 787
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
The defendant Roberto Quirante is the father of
Restituta Quirante, who in turn is the wife of the defendant Salomon Ramas.
Prior to perfection (birth) of the contract, the plaintiffs, Teodoro Velez and
wife, Hermenegilda Chiong Ve loso, were the owners of a pawnshop and had
employed Restituta Quirante in some capacity or other therein. While thus
employed, Restituta Quirante abstracted various sum of money belonging to the
plaintiffs, amounting altogether to P 2,303.60, under condit ions which
supposedly constituted the offense of estafa.
Whereas, in order to prevent said woman from
being brought before the courts for the unlawful act she has executed, the
defendants subscribing the contract in question, have guaranteed to the said
plaintiffs the payment of the aforesaid sum plus an interest of 12% per annum
to bring against Restituta Quirante. Whereas, by virtue of the foegoing
obligation, said Velez and Veloso agree to suspend the action they intend to
bring against Restituta Quirante.
Thus action was instituted in the Court of
First Instance of the Province of Cebu by the plaintiff, Teodoro Velez and his
wife, to recover of the defendants, Salomon Ramas and Roberto Quirante, a sum
of money evidenced by a written obligation signed by said defendants on July
30, 1917, wherein they acknowledged themselves to be jointly and severally
bound for the payment to the plaintiff of the sum of P 2,303.60. It is admitted
that the defendant Ramas had paid P300 upon said obligation prior to the
institution of the suit, leaving a
balance of P 2,003.60. Salomon Ramas answered the complaint, admitting in
effect the facts alleged therein, and stating as his sole ground of defense
that the alleged contract was illegal on its face.
This defendant further interposed a counterclaim,
seeking to recover P 300 which he had already paid. The defendant Roberto
Quirante did not appear, and no defense was made for him. When the case was
submitted for decision the trial court sustained the defense, absolved both the
defendants from the complaint and gave judgment upon the counterclaim in favor
of Salomon Ramas jointly and severally against the plaintiffs for the sum of P
300, with interest at the legal rate from the date the answer was filed. From
this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether or not the contract is valid.
RULING
No.
Under the law
(Art 1352, NCC), contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no
effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy.
The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the
trial court was correct in the conclusion that an action cannot be maintained
upon this contract. And it is so ordered, with costs against the appellants.
No comments:
Post a Comment