Perez vs Pomar

16 November 1903 | Ponente: Torres Facts -

Don Vicente Perez filed a complaint with the CFI in Laguna, asking for the rate of compensation it is entitled to for the services he rendered in the Tabacalera Company. Perez also asked that Eugenio Pomar be condemned to pay damages. In this case, Pomar, agent of Compania General de Tabacos, verbally requested Perez to act as an interpreter between him and the military authorities. Perez would join him in conferences at the local garrison with military officials, as regards certain shipments and exports. Perez was on call his services were ready whenever needed. Because he was on call, he abandoned his own business (a soap factory), but Pomar assured him that Tabacalera Company always generously repaid services rendered it. Pomar even offered employment in that company, but Perez refused. Because of Perezs services, Pomar earned large profits. To answer the complaint, Pomar denied everything. Instead, he said that Perez borrowed money from him for his business, and that he delivered 36 arrobas of oil worth $106, and three packages of resin for use in coloring his soap. Perez joined him in his trips because Perez wanted to extend his mercantile relations, and Pomar allowed only because of the friendship he formed with Perez, and because of the free transportation Perez provides. Perez acted as interpreter in the conferences by his own free will, without Pomar requesting him, so no legal relation between him and the company was formed. When Pomar accepted the spontaneous, voluntary and officious services of Perez, it was in his private capacity, and not as agent of the company.

Issue: Should Perez be remunerated? YES. There was an implicit contract. Also, recovery is based on the principle of unjust enrichment. Rationale: From the testimonies at trial, it appears that Perez indeed rendered services as interpreter of English. He got passes, and accompanied Pomar in his journeys in Laguna. But, it doesnt appear on record whether Perez was at the disposal of Pomar for 6 months. No contract was entered into, nominate or innominate, but there was tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of services. So, this would give rise to an obligation upon the person who was benefited, to make compensation. Besides, there was no proof that the service was rendered gratuitously. Even if Pomar denied that he solicited Perezs services, he still consented to Perezs services. The service was a licit object of a contract so it may be implied that a contract existed between the parties. Pomar accepted the service, and Perez rendered it expecting that the benefit would be reciprocal. So, an obligation arises from this scenario. Here, there was an innominate contract facio ut des. As such, the principle of law that no one should be permitted to enrich himself to the damage of another, applies. No salary was fixed for the services, so the court must determine its value, to be determined by the custom and frequent use of the place in which such services were rendered. So, the court ruled against Pomar. Pomar should pay 200 Mexican pesos, less 50 pesos as to the costs of the suit. DISSENTING, McDonough. Theres no evidence that the recovery should be 200 Mexican Pesos.