Jose Carlo S.

Araojo

June 15, 2013

Ignacio Barzaga v CA and Angelito Alviar (G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997) Facts: The petitioners wife was suffering from a debilitating ailment and with forewarning of her impending death, she expressed her wish to be laid to rest before Christmas day to spare her family of the long vigils as it was almost Christmas. After his wife passed away, petitioner bought materials from herein private respondents for the construction of her niche. Private respondents however failed to deliver on agreed time and date despite repeated follow-ups. The niche was completed in the afternoon of the 27th of December, and Barzaga's wife was finally laid to rest. However, it was two-and-a-half (2-1/2) days behind schedule. Issue: Was there delay in the performance of the private respondent's obligation?

Ruling: Yes. Since the respondent was negligent and incurred delay in the performance of his contractual obligations, the petitioner is entitled to be indemnified for the damage he suffered as a consequence of the delay or contractual breach. There was a specific time agreed upon for the delivery of the materials to the cemetery. This is clearly a case of non-performance of a reciprocal obligation, as in the contract of purchase and sale, the petitioner had already done his part, which is the payment of the price. It was incumbent upon respondent to immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods otherwise delay would attach. An award of moral damages is incumbent in this case as the petitioner has suffered so much.

TELEFAST COM/PHL WIRELES INC. vs CASTRO, SR (GR NO. 73867. FEB. 29, 1988)

Facts:In 1956, Sofia Castro-Crouch (plaintiff-respondent) was vacationing in Pangasinan in her parents house. That same year in November, her mother, Consolacion died. On the day of her mothers death she addressed a telegram to her father Ignacio who was then in the US announcing Consolacions death. The telegram was accepted by Telefast (defendantpetitioner) in its Dagupan office after payment of required fees or charges.The telegram never reached the addressee. Consolacion was interred without her husband and children besides Sofia.Sofia went back to the US and learned that the telegram never reached her father. Thus, she and her siblings and their father sued Telefast for damages arising from the breach of contract by the defendant. Petitioner-defendant Telefast interposed that the reason why the telegram never reached the addressee is because of technical and atmospheric factors beyond its control. It appears though that no attempt was made by defendant to inform Sofia for that matter or any reason at all that explains why the telegram reached the addressee. The CFI ruled in favour of Sofia and her co-plaintiffs awarding her damages she prayed for. Telefast appealed before the IAC which affirmed the decision of the CFI.Hence this appeal.

Issues: Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages arising from the breach of contract even though that there was a technical and atmospheric factors that lead to its failure to comply with terms of the contract? Ruling:Yes. Art. 1170 of the Civil Code provides, Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, delay, negligence, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Art. 2176 also provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. In the case at bar, petitioner and private respondent Sofia C. Crouch entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, petitioner undertook to send said private respondents message overseas by telegr am. This, petitioner did not do, despite performance by said private respondent of her obligation by paying the required charges. Petitioner was therefore guilty of contravening its obligation to said private respondent and is thus liable for damages. Also, it is evident that petitioner did not do anything to advise the plaintiff of the circumstances which lead to its failure to comply with its obligation. It is apparent that such tantamount to gross negligence. Hence bad faith.

Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (GR No. L-21749, September 29, 1967) Facts: A barge being towed by tugboats "Bangus" and "Barbero" all owned by Luzon Stevedoring Corp. rammed one of the wooden piles of the Nagtahan Bailey Bridge due to the swollen current of the Pasig after heavy rains days before. The Republic sued Luzon Stevedoring for actual and consequential damages. Luzon Stevedoring claimed it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees; that the damages to the bridge were caused by force majeure; that plaintiff has no capacity to sue; and that the Nagtahan bailey bridge is an obstruction to navigation. Issue: Whether or not the collision of appellant's barge with the supports or piers of the Nagtahan bridge was in law caused by fortuitous event or force majeure. Ruling: There is a presumption of negligence on part of the employees of Luzon Stevedoring, as the Nagtahan Bridge is stationary. For caso fortuito or force majeure (which in law are identical in so far as they exempt an obligor from liability) by definition, are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable, "events that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable" (Art. 1174, Civ. Code of the Philippines). It is, therefore, not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated, as is commonly believed, but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. Luzon Stevedoring knew the perils posed by the swollen stream and its swift current, and voluntarily entered into a situation involving obvious danger; it therefore assured the risk, and can not shed responsibility merely because the precautions it adopted turned out to be insufficient. It is thus liable for damages.