RSS

Monthly Archives: March 2013

Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES MA. CORAZON M.  AKOL, MIGUEL UY, EDUARDO H. LOPEZ, AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, REX C. DRILON, MIGUEL HILADO, LEY SALCEDO, and MANUEL ALCUAZ JR, petitioners,

vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; COMELEC CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN ABALOS SR.; COMELEC BIDDING and AWARD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN EDUARDO D. MEJOS and MEMBERS GIDEON DE GUZMAN, JOSE F. BALBUENA, LAMBERTO P. LLAMAS, and BARTOLOME SINOCRUZ JR.; MEGA PACIFIC eSOLUTIONS, INC.; and MEGA PACIFIC CONSORTIUM, respondents.

[G.R. No. 159139.  January 13, 2004]

FACTS:

Petitioners were participating bidders questioning the identity and eligibility of the awarded contractor Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC) where the competing bidder is Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. (MPEI) as signed by Mr. Willy Yu of the latter. Private respondent claims that MPEI is the lead partner tied up with other companies like SK C&C, WeSolv, Election.com and ePLDT. Respondent COMELEC obtained copies of Memorandum of Agreements and Teaming Agreements.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was an existence of a consortium.

RULING:

NO. There was no documentary or other basis for Comelec to conclude that a consortium had actually been formed amongst MPEI, SK C&C and WeSolv, along with Election.com and ePLDT. The president of MPEI signing for allegedly in behalf of MPC without any further proof, did not by itself prove the existence of the consortium.  It did not show that MPEI or its president have been duly pre-authorized by the other members of the putative consortium to represent them, to bid on their collective behalf and, more important, to commit them jointly and severally to the bid undertakings.  The letter is purely self-serving and uncorroborated.

 

Tags: ,

Kwok vs. Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation (457 SCRA 465)

DONALD KWOK, petitioner,

vs. PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondent.

[G.R. No. 149252.  April 28, 2005]

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent corporation for the recovery of accumulated vacation and sick leave credits before the NLRC. Petitioner clung to the verbal contract with Mr. Lim, the President of the respondent corporation and his father-in-law for his claims. Petitioner obtained favorable judgment. In their appeal, respondent averred that the position the petition held was not entitled cash conversions of vacation and sick leave credits. The decision of the Labor Arbiter was reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the reversed decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the verbal contract in favor of petitioner is valid.

RULING:

NO. It is true that for a contract to be binding on the parties thereto, it need not be in writing unless the law requires that such contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable or that it be executed in a certain way, in which case that requirement is absolute and independent. (Art. 1356, NCC) But the court disbelieved petitioner’s testimony and gave credence and probative weight to the collective testimonies of the employees and officers of the respondent corporation, including Mr. Lim, whom the petitioner presented as a hostile witness. Even assuming that the petitioner was entitled of such benefits, there was no record to show the record of absences to arrive at the actual number of leave credits. There was no conformity of such agreement with the Board and if so, such claim was already barred by prescription under Article 291 of the Labor Code.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , ,

Paguyo vs. Astorga (470 SCRA 440)

SPOUSES DOMINGO and LOURDES PAGUYO, petitioners,

vs. PIERRE ASTORGA and ST. ANDREW REALTY, INC., respondents.

[G.R. No. 130982.  September 16, 2005]

FACTS:

Petitioners owned a five-storey named Paguyo Building over the land owned by the Armas family. Pending civil case, petitioners and Armases entered into compromise agreement for the former to acquire the lot. In dire need of money, petitioner entered into agreement “Receipt of Earnest Money” with herein respondent for the sale of former’s property and lot which was to be purchased from Armases. Petitioner (Lourdes) later entered into Deed of Absolute Sale of Paguyo Building with the respondent, who also paid for the accrued and subsequent real property taxes. Petitioner filed Complaint rescission of “Receipt of Earnest Money” alleging there has been fraud on the part of respondents. The RTC and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondents with damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner’s complaint for rescission is tenable.

RULING:

NO. Petitioners’ contentions lack merit. For one, on top of the amount received by petitioners, respondents had to shoulder accrued real estate taxes. For another, respondents believe it was the value for their money inasmuch as the building stands on a lot with a lot owner reluctant to sell it. For a third, said amount was arrived considering the depreciated value of the building in view o economic and political uncertainties that time. Except in cases specified by law, lesion or inadequacy of cause shall not invalidate a contract, unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue influence. (Art. 1355, NCC) Gross inadequacy of the price does not affect a contract of sale, except as may indicate a defect in the consent, or the parties really intended a donation or some other act of contract. (Art.1470, NCC)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , ,

BPI Express Card Corporation vs. Olalia (372 SCRA 399)

BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs. EDDIE C. OLALIA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 131086.  December 14, 2001]

FACTS:

Respondent was issued by the petitioner a credit card under his name. Upon renewal, petitioner issued in addition a supplementary card in the name of respondent’s wife. Respondent denies application. The supplementary card accumulated a purchase of over P100k. Petitioner demanded payment but respondent refused to pay. The RTC ordered respondent to pay only the purchase of its principal card but was reversed after the filing of Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the original decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the (1) credit card issued to respondent’s wife is valid, and (2) respondent be held liable for its purchases.

RULING:

(1) NO. The issuance of the supplementary card shall only be upon payment of necessary fee and submission of application from the principal for the purpose. Contracts of adhesion are to be construed strictly against the party who drafted it.

(2) NO. Respondent should not be held liable for the purchase made under the so-called extension or supplementary card as petitioner failed to explain why a card was issued without accomplishment of requirements. It did not even secured specimen signatures of purported extension cardholder to compare with charge slips. Respondent is liable only for the purchases made under his own credit card.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , ,

Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals (359 SCRA 438)

DANILO D. MENDOZA, also doing business under the name and style of ATLANTIC EXCHAGE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FERNANDO MARAMAG JR., RICARDO G. DECEPIDA, and BAYANI A. BAUTISTA, respondent.

[G.R. No. 116710.  June 25, 2001]

FACTS:

Respondent was granted by respondent Philippine National Bank  (PNB) credit line and Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt (LC/TR) line. As security for the credit accommodations and for those which may thereinafter be granted, petitioner mortgaged to respondent PNB some of his properties. Petitioner later requested for loan restructuring and issued promissory notes, which he failed to comply. Respondent PNB extra-judicially foreclosed the real and chattel mortgages, and the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction to respondent PNB, as highest bidder. Petitioner filed a case in the RTC contending that foreclosure is illegal invoking promissory estoppel, and secured favorable judgment. The decision of RTC was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the foreclosure of petitioner’s real estate and chattel mortgages were legal and valid as opposed to promissory estoppel.

RULING:

YES. First, there was no promissory estoppel as the promise (of respondent bank) must be plain and unambiguous and sufficiently specific. Second, there was no meeting of the minds leading to another contract, hence loan was not restructured. Third, promissory notes petitioner issued were valid. Fourth, stipulation in the mortgage, extending its scope and effect to after-acquired property is valid and binding after the correct and valid process of extra-judicial foreclosure. Finally, record showed that petitioner did not even attempt to tender any redemption price during the one-year redemption period.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , , ,

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. Vs. Vasquez (399 SCRA 207)

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD., petitioner,

vs. SPOUSES DANIEL VASQUEZ and MARIA LUISA MADRIGAL VASQUEZ, respondents.

[G.R. No. 150843.  March 14, 2003]

FACTS:

In respondents’ return flight to Manila from Hongkong, they were deprived of their original seats in Business Class with their companions because of overbooking. Since respondents were privileged members, their seats were upgraded to First Class. Respondents refused but eventually persuaded to accept it. Upon return to Manila, they demanded that they be indemnified in the amount of P1million for the “humiliation and embarrassment” caused by its employees. Petitioner’s Country Manager failed to respond. Respondents instituted action for damages. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with modification in the award of damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners (1) breached the contract of carriage, (2) acted with fraud and (3) were liable for damages.

RULING:

(1) YES. Although respondents have the priority of upgrading their seats, such priority may be waived, as what respondents did. It should have not been imposed on them over their vehement objection.

(2) NO. There was no evident bad faith or fraud in upgrade of seat neither on overbooking of flight as it is within 10% tolerance.

(3) YES. Nominal damages (Art. 2221, NCC) were awarded in the amount of P5,000.00. Moral damages (Art.2220, NCC) and attorney’s fees were set aside and deleted from the Court of Appeals’ ruling.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , ,

San Agustin vs. Court of Appeals (371 SCRA 346)

JESUS SAN AGUSTIN, petitioner,

vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO MENEZ, respondents.

[G.R. No. 121940.  December 4, 2001]

FACTS:

Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) sold to a certain Macaria Vda. de Caiquep a parcel of residential land evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. The following encumbrance was annotated at the back of the title, not to sell, convey, lease or sublease, or otherwise encumber the property. A day after the issuance of TCT Macaria Vda. de Caiquep sold the subject lot to private respondent, Maximo Menez, Jr.,  as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Said TCT was lost, but private respondent subsequently obtained a duplicate after judicial proceedings. Petitioner was not notified. Both RTC and CA ruled in favor of private respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is correct that Deed of Sale between Macaria Vda. de Caiquep and private respondent is null and void in accordance with Par.7 Art.1409 of the New Civil Code.

RULING:

NO. Petitioner’s contention is less than meritorious.  In this case, the GSIS, the proper party, has not filed any action for the annulment of Deed of Sale between them and Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, nor for the forfeiture of the lot in question.  The contract of sale remains valid between the parties, unless and until annulled in the proper suit filed by the rightful party, the GSIS.  The said contract of sale is binding upon the heirs of Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, including petitioner who alleges to be one of her heirs, in line with the rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest. Since, both were aware of the existence of the stipulated condition in favor of the original seller, GSIS, yet both entered into an agreement violating said condition and nullifying its effects, said parties should be held in estoppel to assail and annul their own deliberate acts.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , , ,