Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
shipment and 2,185 cartons of the pineapple shipment were so damaged that they no longer had
commercial value.[5]
Del Monte Produce filed a claim under the open cargo policy for the damages to its shipment. McGees
Marine Claims Insurance Adjuster evaluated the claim and recommended that payment in the amount
of $210,266.43 be made. A check for the recommended amount was sent to Del Monte Produce; the
latter then issued a subrogation receipt[6] to Phoenix and McGee.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Mindanao Terminal is liable to pay for damages.
HELD: No.It was established that Mindanao Terminal loaded and stowed the cargoes of Del Monte
Produce aboard the M/V Mistrau in accordance with the stowage plan, a guide for the area
assignments of the goods in the vessels hold, prepared by Del Monte Produce and the officers of M/V
Mistrau. The loading and stowing was done under the direction and supervision of the ship officers.
The vessels officer would order the closing of the hatches only if the loading was done correctly after
a final inspection. The said ship officers would not have accepted the cargoes on board the vessel if
they were not properly arranged and tightly secured to withstand the voyage in open seas. They would
order the stevedore to rectify any error in its loading and stowing. A foremans report, as proof of
work done on board the vessel, was prepared by the checkers of Mindanao Terminal and concurred in
by the Chief Officer of M/V Mistrau after they were satisfied that the cargoes were properly loaded.
The petition is GRANTED.
People, appellee, vs. Danny Delos Santos, appellant403 SCRA 153, GR No. 135919, May 9,
2003
Facts: On November 1997, De Leon witnessed the gruesome killing of Flores, while drinking with 3
men, onewas the witness Tablate. The two were positive of Delos Santos as the perpetrator but
testified only on January1998. Despite Delos Santoss alibi, he was found guilty of murder.
Issue: WON the testimonies of the witnesses are credible even after the 2-monthperiod
Held: Yes. It is but natural for witnesses to avoid being involved in a criminal proceeding particularly
when thecrime committed is of such gravity as to show the cruelty of the perpetrator, the fear of
retaliation can have a paralyzing effect to the witnesses. Besides, settled is the rule that positive
identification x x x prevails over alibiand denial. Decision is affirmed with modification.
VICTORINO D. MAGAT, petitioner, versus HON. LEO D. MEDIALDEA and SANTIAGO A.
GUERRERO, respondents. (G.R. No. L-37120 April 20, 1983 2nd Division) ESCOLIN, J.:
FACTS: Defendant Santiago Guerrero entered into a contract with the U.S. Navy Exchange, Subic Bay,
Philippines for the operation of a fleet of taxicabs. Guerrero and his aforesaid agent Isidro Aligada
were able to import from Japan with the assistance of the plaintiff Magat and his Japanese business
associates the necessary taximeters for Guerreros taxicabs in partial fulfillment of commitments with
the U.S. Navy Exchange, Subic Bay, Philippines.
Guerrero and his agent have repeatedly assured Magat of his financial capabilities to pay for the goods
ordered by him and in fact he accomplished the necessary application for a letter of credit with his
banker, but he subsequently instructed his banker not to give due course to his application for a letter
of credit and that for reasons only known to him, he failed and refused to open the necessary letter of
credit to cover payment of the goods ordered by him.
Meanwhile, Guerrero has been operating his taxicabs without the required radio transceivers and when
the U.S. Navy Authorities were pressing defendant for compliance with his commitments with respect
to the installations of radio transceivers on his taxicabs, he impliedly laid the blame for the delay upon
Magat, thus destroying his reputation with the said Naval Authorities of Subic Bay, Philippines, with
whom he transacts business.
Victorino Magat filed a complaint for alleged breach of contract against Santiago Guerrero.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint for breach of contract states a valid cause of action.
HELD: Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides: those who in the performance of their obligation are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof are
liable for damages.
The phrase "in any manner contravene the tenor" of the obligation includes any ilicit act or omission
which impairs the strict and faithful fulfillment of the obligation and every kind of defective
performance.
The damages which the obligor is liable for includes not only the value of the loss suffered by the
obligee (dao emergente) but also the profits which the latter failed to obtain (lucro cesante). If the
obligor acted in good faith, he shall be liable for those damages that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted; and in case of fraud, bad faith, malice
or wanton attitude, he shall be liable for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation.
In the case at bar, petitioner had fulfilled his part of the bargain while private respondent failed to
comply with his correlative obligation by refusing to open a letter of credits to cover payment of the
goods ordered by him, and that consequently, petitioner suffered not only loss of his expected profits,
but moral and exemplary damages as well. Therefore he is liable for the damages he caused to the
petitioner.
FIDELA DEL CASTILLO Vda. DE MISTICA, petitioner, versus Spouses BERNARDINO NAGUIAT
and MARIA PAULINA GERONA-NAGUIAT, respondents.
(G.R. No. 137909 December 11, 2003 1st Division)
Art. 1182. Potestative Condition
Facts
Petitioner filed a complaint for rescission alleging failure and refusal of Defendants to pay the
balance constitutes a violation of the contract which entitles her to rescind the same
Petitioner argues that period for performance of obligation cannot be extended to 10 years
because to do so would convert the obligation to purely potestative
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in the application of Article 1191 of the Civil Code,
as it ruled that there is no breach of obligation inspite of the lapse of their stipulated period and the
failure of the respondent to pay.
Held
Under Art. 1191 of Civil Code, the right to rescind an obligation is predicated on
violation between parties brought about by breach of faith by one of them. Rescission,
however, is allowed only when the breach is substantial and fundamental to the fulfillment
of the obligation
In this case, no substantial breach in the Kasulatan, it was stipulated that payment could be
made even after 10 years from execution of contract, provided they will pay the 12% interest
in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof are liable for damages. Petition DENIED
VALENTIN MOVIDO, substituted by MARGINITO MOVIDO, Petitioner, versus LUIS REYES
PASTOR, Respondent. (G.R. No. 172279 February 11, 2010 3rd Division) CORONA, J.:
FACTS: Respondent Luis Reyes Pastor filed a complaint for specific performance in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, praying that petitioner Valentin Movido be compelled to cause the survey
of a parcel of land subject of their contract to sell. In his complaint, respondent alleged that he and
petitioner executed a kasunduan sa bilihan ng lupa where the latter agreed to sell a parcel of land
located in Paliparan, Dasmarias, Cavite with an area of some 21,000 sq. m. out of the 22,731 sq. m.
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 362995 at P400/sq. m. Respondent further alleged
that another kasunduan was later executed supplementing the kasunduan sa bilihan ng lupa. It
provided that, if a Napocor power line traversed the subject lot, the purchase price would be lowered
toP200/sq. m. beyond the distance of 15 meters on both sides from the center of the power line while
the portion within a distance of 15 meters on both sides from the center of the power line would not
be paid. Respondent alleged that he already paid petitioner P5 million out of the original purchase
price of P8.4 million stated in the kasunduan sa bilihan ng lupa. He was willing and ready to pay the
balance of the purchase price but due to petitioners refusal to have the property surveyed despite
incessant demands, his unpaid balance could not be determined with certainty.
ISSUE: Whether or not rescission is tenable.
HELD: No. Rescission is only allowed when the breach is so substantial and fundamental as to defeat
the object of the parties in entering into the contract. We find no such substantial or material breach.
It is true that respondent failed to pay the 7th and 8th installments of the purchase price. However,
considering the circumstances of the instant case, particularly the provisions of the kasunduan,
respondent cannot be deemed to have committed a serious breach. In the first place, respondent was
not in default as petitioner never made a demand for payment.1avvphi1 Moreover, the kasunduan sa
bilihan ng lupa and the kasunduan should both be given effect rather than be declared conflicting, if
there is a way of reconciling them. Petitioner and respondent would not have entered into either of the
agreements if they did not intend to be bound or governed by them. Indeed, taken together, the two
agreements actually constitute a single contract pertaining to the sale of a land to respondent by
petitioner. Their stipulations must therefore be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful