Professional Documents
Culture Documents
29 Phil 542
TRENT; February 18, 1915
NATURE
Appeal from the decision of the CFI
FACTS
-Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar. Gilchrist was the owner of a
theatre in Iloilo. They entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to
Gilchrist the Zigomar for exhibition in his theatre for a week for P125.
- Cuddy returned the money already paid by Gilchrist days before the
delivery date so that he can lease the film to Espejo and Zaldarriaga
instead and receive P350 for the film for the same period.
- Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against Cuddy, Espejo and
Zaldarriaga. He also prayed for damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga
for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy.
ISSUE
WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga is liable for interfering with the contract
between Gilchrist and Cuddy, they not knowing at the time the identity of
the parties
HELD
YES
- Appellants have the legal liability for interfering with the contract and
causing its breach. This liability arises from unlawful acts and not from
contractual obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with
Gilchrist.
- Article 1902 of the Civil Code provides that a person who, by act or
omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence,
shall be obliged to pay for the damage done. There is nothing in this
article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of the
tortfeasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes
damage. No such knowledge is required in order that the injured party
may recover for the damages suffered.
DISPOSITION Judgment affirmed
SON PING BUN vs CA (Tek Hua)
GR No. 120554
Quisumbing; September 21, 1999
NATURE
Appeal on certiorari for review of CA decision
FACTS
- In 1963, Tek hua Trading, through its Managing Director So Pek Giok,
entered into a lease agreement with D.C. Chuan covering four stalls in
Binondo. The contracts were initially for one year but after expiry of the
same, they continued on a month to month basis. In 1976, Tek Hua was
dissolved with the original members forming a new corporation, Tek Hua
Enterprises with Manuel Tiong as one of the incorporators.
- So Ping Bun, on the death of his grandfather, So Pek Giok, occupied the
same stalls under the business name, Trendsetter Marketing.
- In 1989, the lessor, DC Chuan sent a letter to Tek Hua advising it of a
25% increase in rent effective September 1, 1989. A further rent increase
of 30% effective January 1, 1990 was implemented. Enclosed in both
letters were new lease contracts for signing. While the letters contained a
statement that the leases will be terminated if the contracts were not
signed, the same were not rescinded.
- In 1991, Tiong wrote a letter to So Ping Bun asking him to vacate the
four stalls as the same were going to be used by them. Instead of vacating
the stalls, So was able to secure lease agreements from DC Chuan.
- Tek Hua filed an injunction and an action for nullification of the contracts
between Trendsetter and DC Chuan. The lower Court ruled in favor of
Tek Hua. The CA, on appeal, upheld the trial court. Both the trial court and
the CA awarded legal fees only.
ISSUE
- WON So Ping Bun was guilty of tortuous interference of contract
HELD- Yes. A duty which the law on torts is concerned with is respect for the
property of others, and a cause of action ex delicto may be predicated
upon an unlawful interference by one party of the enjoyment of the other
of his private property. In the case at bar, petitioner, Trendsetter asked
DC Chuan to execute lease contracts in its favor, and as a result petitioner
deprived respondent of the latters property right.
Reasoning- Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from injury, and damges
are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
One becomes liable in an action for damages for a nontrespassory
invasion of anothers interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset if
a) the other has property rights and privileges with respect to
the use or enjoyment interfered with;
b) the invasion is substantial;
c) the defendants conduct is a legal cause of the invasion;
d) the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or
unintentional and actionable under the general negligence
rules.
- On the other hand, the elemts of tort interference are
a) existence of a valid contract
b) knowledge on the part of the third party of its existence
c) interference of the third party is without legal justification or
excuse
- Since there were existing lease contracts between Tek Hua and DC
Chuan, Tek Hua in fact had property rights over the leased stalls. The
action of Trendsetter in asking DC Chuan to execute the contracts in their
favor was unlawful interference.
Page 1 of 4
- City contends that Perez Blvd is a national road that is not under the
control or supervision of the City of Dagupan. Hence, no liability should
attach to the city.
Issue
WON control or supervision over a national road by the City of Dagupan
exists, in effect binding the city to answer for damages in accordance with
article 2189 CC.
Held
YES
- The liability of private corporations for damages arising from injuries
suffered by pedestrians from the defective condition of roads is
expressed in the Civil Code as follows:
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by,
any person by reason of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works
under their control or supervision.
- It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the
province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The article only
requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the
defective road or street.
- In this case, control or supervision is provided for in the charter of
Dagupan and is exercised through the City Engineer.
- The charter only lays down general rules regulating that liability of the
city. On the other hand, article 2189 applies in particular to the liability
arising from defective streets, public buildings and other public works.
On Damages awarded
- Actual damages of P10000 reduced to proven expenses of P8053.65.
The trial court should not have rounded off the amount. The court can
not rely on speculation, conjecture or guess work as to the amount.
- Moral damages of P150000 is excessive and is reduced to P20000.
Guilatcos handicap was not permanent and disabled her only during
her treatment which lasted for one year.
- Exemplary damages of P50000 reduced to P10000.
- Award of P7420 as lost income for one year, plus P450 bonus remain
the same
- P3000 as attorneys fees remain the same
Disposition Petition granted. CA decision reversed and set aside,
decision of trial court reinstated with modification.
PERSONS LIABLE
WORCESTER v OCAMPO
22 PHIL 42
Johnson; Feb. 27, 1912
NATURE
Appeal from judgment of CFI
FACTS
- Plaintiff Dean Worcester, member of the Civil Commission of the
Philippines and Secretary of the Interior of the Insular Government
commenced an action against defendants Ocampo, Kalaw, Santos,
all. Each is liable for the whole damage caused by all, and altogether
jointly liable for the whole damage. It is no defense for one sued alone,
that the others who participated in the wrongful act are not joined with him
as defendants; nor is it any excuse for him that his participation in the tort
was insignificant as compared with that of the others.
- The courts during the trial may find that some of the alleged joint
tortfeasors are liable and that others are not liable. The courts may
release some for lack of evidence while condemning others of the alleged
tort. And this is true even though they are charged jointly and severally.
However, in this case, the lower court, committed no error in rendering a
joint and several judgment against the defendants. As recognized by
Section 6 of Act 277 of the Philippine Commission: Every author, editor,
or proprietor * * * is chargeable with the publication of any words in any
part * * * or number of each newspaper, as fully as if he were the author of
the same.
Disposition Judgment of the lower court modified. Ocampo, Kalaw,
Palma, Arellano, Jose, Lichauco, Barretto, and Cansipit held jointly and
severally liable for the sum of P25, 000 with interest at 6%. Santos
absolved from any liability.
ARELLANO, C.J. and MAPA, J. [concurring]
- We concur, except with reference to the liability imposed upon Lichauco.
The real owner and founder, Ocampo, explicitly stated that the other socalled founders subscribed and paid sums of money to aid the paper but
as to Lichauco, he offered to contribute, but did not carry out his offer and
in fact paid nothing. It is incomprehensible how one could claim the right
or title to share the earnings or profits of a company when he had put no
capital into it, neither is it comprehensible how one could share in the
losses thereof, and still less incur liability for damages on account of some
act of the said company, an unrestricted liability to the extent of all his
property, as though he were a regular general partner when he was not
such.
TORRES [dissenting in part]
- I concur in regard to the defendants Ocampo and Kalaw, but dissent as
regards Palma, Arellano, Jose, Lichauco, Barretto, and Cansipit for they
had neither direct nor indirect participation in the act that gave rise to the
present suit for damages, nor were they owners or proprietors of the
newspaper, its press or other equipment. They were donors who merely
contributed a sum of money, as a genuine gift, for the purpose of
founding, editing, and issuing the said newspaper, it is improper to deduce
that the contributors formed a company of either a civil or commercial
nature.
- After Ocampo had accepted the various amounts proffered, the donors
ceased to be the owners of and surrendered all right to the money
donated and to the objects that were acquired therewith. Therefore they
can not incur, jointly and severally with the director and manager.
CHAPMAN V UNDERWOOD
27 Phil 374
MORELAND; March 28, 1914
NATURE
Appeal from the judgment of trial court finding for the defendant
FACTS
Page 2 of 4
HELD:
1. YES
Ratio: The reduction of the award of net unearned earnings had no basis,
thus is void.
Reasoning: the RTC based its computation of the net unearned earnings
on 2 factors: life expectancy of the deceased of another 30 years, and an
annual net income of P55,000 (P75,000 gross income less P20,000
personal expenses).
In coming out with the life expectancy, RTC considered the age and
health of the deceased. However, the CA modified this by factoring in the
engagement of Luna in car racing, thus lowering the life expectancy to
only 10 years.
WRT to the gross income, RTC considered the various positions the
deceased held at the time of his death, and the trend of his earnings over
the span of his last few years, thus coming up with a potential gross
income of P75,000. However, the CA increased the annual personal
expenses to P30,000, due to the escalating gasoline expenses, thus
lowering the net annual unearned income to P45,000.
CA erred in ruling that the engagement with car racing reduced the life
expectancy. There is nothing on record that supports the claim that the car
racing was a dangerous and risky activity tending to shorten his life
Page 4 of 4