Legaspi Oil Co

LEGASPI OIL CO. v. CA, GR No.
96505, 1993-07-01
Facts
The price at which appellant sells the copra varies from time to time, depending on the
prevailing market price when the contract is entered into. One of his authorized agents,
Jose Llover, had previous transactions with appellee for the sale and delivery of copra.
The records show that he concluded a sale for 70 tons of copra at P95.00 per 100 kilos
on May 27, 1975 and another sale for 30 tons of P102.00 per 100 kilos on September
23, 1975. Subsequently, on November 6, 1975, another designated agent signed a
contract in behalf of appellant for the sale of 100 tons of copra at P79.00 per 100 kilos
with the delivery terms of 25 days effective December 15, 1975. At this point, it must
be noted that the price of copra had been fluctuating (going up and down), indicating
its unsteady position in the market.
On February 16, 1976, appellant's agent Jose Llover signed contract No. 3804 for the
sale of 100 tons of copra at P82.00 per 100 kilos with delivery terms of 20 days
effective March 8, 1976
November 3, 1976, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for breach of
a contract and for damages... reversal decision on March 23,1990.
After trial, the then Court of First Instance of Albay in Civil Case No. 5529 rendered a
decision holding herein private respondent Oseraos liable for damages in the amount of
P48,152.76, attorney's fees (P2,000), and litigation costs.
Issues
Whether or not private respondent Oseraos is liable for damages arising from fraud or
bad faith in deliberately breaching the contract of sale entered into by the parties.
Oseraos delivered only 46,334 kilograms of copra to petitioner, leaving an undelivered

thus a balance of 53,666 kilograms.
A letter dated October 6, 1976, petitioner made a final demand with a warning that,
should private respondent fail to complete delivery of the balance of 53,666 kilograms
of copra.
Ruling
The conduct of the private respondent clearly manifests his deliberate fraudulent intent
to evade his contractual obligation for the price of copra had in the meantime more
than doubled from 82 PHP to 168 PHP per 100 kilograms. under Art. 1170 of the Civil
Code 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. Pursuant to said article, private respondent is liable for damages.
G.R. No. 164601
Facts
The spouses Luz San Pedro (Luz) and Kenichiro Tominaga (Kenichiro) are the owners of
a parcel of land, on which their house was erected, described as Lot 1509-C-3 with an
area of 700 square meters situated in Barangay Malis, Guiguinto, Bulacan. Said property
was... acquired by them from one Guillermo Narciso as evidenced by a "Bilihan ng
Bahagi ng Lupa" dated March 18, 1992.
Consequently, Frank placed concrete monuments marked P.S. on all corners of the lot
which were used as guides by Luz and Kenichiro in erecting a concrete fence measuring
about eight feet in height and cost them P250,000.00 to build.
During their confrontations before the barangay, Frank admitted that he made a
mistake and offered to share in the expenses for the demolition and reconstruction of
the questioned portion of Luz and Kenichiro's fence. He however failed to deliver on his
word, thus the filing of the instant suit.
In their defense, the defendants-spouses Frank and Erlinda Batal submitted that Frank
never represented himself to be a licensed geodetic engineer. It was Erlinda who
supervised her husband's work that the house and lot of plaintiffs, Luz and Kenichiro,
were already fenced... even before they were contracted to do a resurvey of the same
and the laying out of the concrete monuments. The spouses Frank and Erlinda also
refuted the spouses Luz's and Kenichiro's allegation of negligence and averred that the
subject complaint was instituted to harass them.
Issues:
Ordering the defendants to pay to plaintiffs the costs of this suit.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling in favor of Respondents by premising its Decision
on misapprehension of facts amounting to grave abuse of discretion which is also a
ground for a Petition for Review.
Culpa, or negligence, may be understood in two different senses: either as culpa
aquiliana, which is the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum
juris and gives rise to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by any
other obligation, or as culpa contractual, which is the fault or negligence incident in the
performance of an obligation which already existed, and which increases the liability
from such already existing obligation.
ART. 1170. Those who 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.
ART. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad
faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2202, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.

Legaspi Oil Co

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legaspi Oil Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGASPI OIL CO. v. CA, GR No.

Oseraos delivered only 46,334 kilograms of copra to petitioner, leaving an undelivered

You might also like