ROWENA R.

CABAS
Obligations and Contracts
G.R. No. L-5671. August 24, 1910.
Benito delos Reyes, plaintiff-appellant.

vs.
Veronica Alojado, defendant-appellee.
En Banc Case
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On or about Janaury 22, 1905, Veronica Alojado obtained
a loan from Benito delos Reyes the sum of 67.60 for the
purpose of paying her debt from Olympia Zaballa. It was
agreed that Alojado should remain as a servant in the house of
delos Reyes to serve without remuneration until such time that
she can find someone who can loan the said amount, freeing
her from her obligation to delos Reyes but repeating/incurring
the same obligation.
On March 12, 1906, Alojado left without paying her debt
and despite demands, failed to pay her loan compelling delos
Reyes to file a suit at the Court of Justice of the Peace of Sta.
Rosa, Laguna on March 15, 1906 to recover the sum or to
compel her to return to his service. On April 14, 1906, the
judgment was rendered by the court against Alojado for her to
pay the sum to delos Reyes and if insolvent, fulfill her
agreement with costs assessed against her.
Defendant filed an appeal with the Court of First
Instance, the plaintiff on May 4, 1906 filed a Motion to Disallow
the Appeals with cost against her alleging that it was filed out
of time. Delos Reyes also averred that Alojado also obtained

several small amounts from him amounting to the total

amount of 11.97 that remained unpaid and asked the court
for judgment to comply with the contract and to pay him the
sum of 79.57 and that until paid, Alojado should remain
gratuitously in the service of his household plus the cost of the
trial.
Alojado answere stressing that she left because delos
Reyes did not pay her for the services she has rendered and
that the items she purchased amounting to 11.97 are still in
the possession of delos Reyes because he refuses to deliver
them.
The Court of First Instance absolved Alojado computing
the wages due her to 82 less her indebtedness. The
difference shall be paid by delos Reyes to Alojado in the
amount of 2.43, hence, delos Reyes filed before the Supreme
Court an appeal through bill of exceptions, alleging that the
CFIs judgment was manifestly contrary to the weight of
evidence.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in
ruling that the condition is contrary to law and
morality under Article 1255 (Article 1306, NCC) in
relation to the provisions on hiring domestic servies
under Article 1583, 1584 and 1585 of the Civil Code.

RULING:

No. The duty to pay the said sum as well as that of 11.97
delivered to the defendant in small amounts during the time
that she was in the plaintiffs house, is unquestionable,
inasmuch as it is a positive debt demandable of the defendant
by her creditor. (Arts. 1754, 1170 Civil Code). However, the
reason alleged by the plaintiff as a basis for the loan is
untenable, to wit, that the defendant was obliged to render
service in his house as a servant without remuneration
whatever and to remain therein so long as she had not paid
her debt, inasmuch as this condition is contrary to law and
morality. (Art. 1255, Civil Code).
Domestic services are always to be remunerated, and no
agreement may subsist is law in which it is stipulated that any
domestic service shall be absolutely gratuitous, unless it be
admitted htat slavery may be established in this country
through a covenant entered into between the interested
parties.
Articles 1583, 1584 and 1585 of the Civil Code prescribe
rules governing the hiring of domestic servants, the conditions
of such hire, the term during which the service may be
rendered and the wages that accrue to the servant, also the
duties of the latter and the master.
Article 1306 (1255) of the Civil Code reads: The contracting
parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms
and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided
they are not contrary to law, moral, good customs,
public order, or public policy.