FISHER V ROBB

GR 46274
November 2, 1939 || Villareal, J.
Appeal from the judgment of the CFI Manila ordering
Robb to pay Fisher Php 2000 with interest
SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE:

FACTS:
In Sept 1935, Robb was asked by the BOD of the
Philippine Greyhound Club Inc to go to Shanghai
to study the operation of a dog racing course.
There, he met Fisher who happened to manage a
dog racing course. Fisher became interested in the
PGCI and asked to become a stockholder. He
eventually subscribed to the PGCI and paid Php
3000 for the 1st installment of the subscription.
When Robb returned to Manila, PGCI BOD called
for the second installment to which Fisher
complied. The latter sent Php 2,000 directly to
PGCI.
Due to manipulations of some members, the PGCI
crumbled not long after.
Robb, who was now organizing the Philippine
Racing Club, tried to save the investment of those
who subscribed to the PGCI by having PRC acquire
the remaining assets of the PGCI. He wrote a
letter explaining what happened and owned up to

the responsibility to the stockholders who had

paid their second installment.
Fisher wrote Robb back and said that he wants his
money back. Upon the receipt of this letter, Robb
answered Fisher to the effect that it was not his
duty under the law to reimburse Fisher for any
loss which he might have suffered in connection
with the PGCI in the same way that he couldnt
expect anyone to reinbumrse him for his own
losses which were much more than those of
Fisher.
In that same letter, Robb stated that he felt a
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY for the 2nd
installmentswhich were made to carry out his plan
and that he and Mr. Hilscher would see to it that
the stockholders will be paid back. There was
emphasis on the idea that they had taken it upon
themselves to do this.
Finally, in the same letter, Robb stated that he
was to receive certain shares for his services as
promoter of the new Philippine Racing Club & as
soon as he receives it, he will be in a position to
compensate the few others who made the 2nd
payment. He restated that the payments will
come from his personal funds in an effort to make
things easier for those who were sport enough to
try to save the Greyhound org. by making 2nd
payments.
ISSUES / HELD / RATIO:
1. W/N the trial court erred in holding that there was
sufficient consideration to justify the promise made by
defendant Robb in his letters? NO.
RELEVANT LAWS:
Article 1254 (definition of a contract) and Article
1261(1) (requisites of a contract - consent)
o In this case, while Robb told Fisher he felt
morally responsible, and said hed take care

of it, it doesnt appear that Fisher ahd

consented to the said form of
reimbursement of the Php 2000 which hed
directly paid to PGCI to satisfy the 2nd
installment. So the first requisite under
1261 (consent of the contracting parties)
doesnt exist.
Article 1261(3) and Article 1274 and Article 1275
(on considerations)
o Third requisite is a consideration for the
obligation established. Court differentiates
between consideration as the explanation
and consideration as the motive of the
contract. (Former= essential reason for
contract; latter = particular reasons foa
contracting party which dont affect the
other party and w/c do not preclude the
existence of a different consideration.
o Court says that the contract in this case is
onerous in character, because it supposes
the deprivation of the later of an amount of
money which impairs his property, which is
a burden, and for it to be legally valid it is

necessary that it should have a

consideration consisting in the lending or
promise of a thing or service by such party.
o The promise which Robb made to Fisher to
return PHp 2,000 was prompted by a feeling
of pity. The obligation is then purely moral
and is not demandable in law but only in
conscience, over which judges have no
jurisdiction.
o The moral obligation is not a sufficient
consideration.
RULING:
The promise made by an organizer of a dog racing
course to a stockholder to return to him certain amounts
paid by the latter in satisfaction of his subscription upon
the belief of said organizer that he was morally
responsible because of the failure of the enterprise, is
not the consideration required by article 1261 of the
Civil Code as an essential element for the legal
existence of an onerous contract which would bind the
promisor to comply with his promise.
The appealed judgment is reversed and the defendant is
absolved from the complaint with costs to the plaintiff.