Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 114791. May 29, 1997]


NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEAL, HERMOGENE ONG a!" #ANE C.
ONG, respondents.
D E C $ $ O N
ROMERO, J.%
No less than the Constitution commands us to protect marriage as an inviolable
social institution and the foundation of the family.
[!
In our society" the importance of a
#edding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the matri$ of the family and"
therefore" an occasion #orth reliving in the succeeding years.
It is in this light that #e narrate the follo#ing undisputed facts%
&rivate respondents spouses 'ermogenes and (ane Ong #ere married on (une )"
*+" in Dumaguete City. ,he video coverage of the #edding #as provided by
petitioners at a contract price of &"-././/. ,hree times thereafter" the ne#ly#eds tried
to claim the video tape of their #edding" #hich they planned to sho# to their relatives in
the 0nited States #here they #ere to spend their honeymoon" and thrice they failed
because the tape #as apparently not yet processed. ,he parties then agreed that the
tape #ould be ready upon private respondents1 return.
2hen private respondents came home from their honeymoon" ho#ever" they found
out that the tape had been erased by petitioners and therefore" could no longer be
delivered.
3urious at the loss of the tape #hich #as supposed to be the only record of their
#edding" private respondents filed on September 45" *+ a complaint for specific
performance and damages against petitioners before the 6egional ,rial Court"
)
th
(udicial District" 7ranch 55" Dumaguete City. 8fter a protracted trial" the court a
9uo rendered a decision" to #it%
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby granted:
1. Ordering the rescission of the agreement entered into between plaintiff
Hermogenes Ong and defendant Nancy Go
!. "eclaring defendants #le$ Go and Nancy Go jointly and se%erally liable to
plaintiffs Hermogenes Ong and &ane '. Ong for the following sums:
a( )*+,.,,, the down payment made at contract time
b( )-+,,,,.,,, as moral damages
c( )!,,,,,.,,, as e$emplary damages
d( )+,,,,.,,, as attorney.s fees and
e( )!,,,,.,,, as litigation e$penses
"efendants are also ordered to pay the costs.
/O O0"101".2
Dissatisfied #ith the decision" petitioners elevated the case to the Court of 8ppeals
#hich" on September :" **5" dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court1s
decision.
'ence" this petition.
&etitioners contend that the Court of 8ppeals erred in not appreciating the evidence
they presented to prove that they acted only as agents of a certain &ablo ;im and" as
such" should not have been held liable. In addition" they aver that there is no evidence
to sho# that the erasure of the tape #as done in bad faith so as to <ustify the a#ard of
damages.
[4!
,he petition is not meritorious.
&etitioners claim that for the video coverage" the cameraman #as employed by
&ablo ;im #ho also o#ned the video e9uipment used. ,hey further assert that they
merely get a commission for all customers solicited for their principal.
[5!
,his contention is primarily premised on 8rticle ++5 of the Civil Code #hich states
thus%
#03. 1445. 6f an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action
against the persons with whom the agent has contracted neither ha%e such persons
against the principal.
6n such case the agent is the one directly bound in fa%or of the person with whom he
has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, e$cept when the contract in%ol%es
things belonging to the principal.
$$$ $$$
$$$=
&etitioners1 argument that since the video e9uipment used belonged to ;im and
thus the contract #as actually entered into bet#een private respondents and ;im is not
deserving of any serious consideration. In the instant case" the contract entered into is
one of service" that is" for the video coverage of the #edding. Conse9uently" it can
hardly be said that the ob<ect of the contract #as the video e9uipment used. ,he use by
petitioners of the video e9uipment of another person is of no conse9uence.
It must also be noted that in the course of the protracted trial belo#" petitioners did
not even present ;im to corroborate their contention that they #ere mere agents of the
latter. It #ould not be un#arranted to assume that their failure to present such a vital
#itness #ould have had an adverse result on the case.
[:!
8s regards the a#ard of damages" petitioners #ould impress upon this Court their
lac> of malice or fraudulent intent in the erasure of the tape. ,hey insist that since
private respondents did not claim the tape after the lapse of thirty days" as agreed upon
in their contract" the erasure #as done in consonance #ith consistent business practice
to minimi?e losses.
[.!
2e are not persuaded.
8s correctly observed by the Court of 8ppeals" it is contrary to human nature for any
ne#ly#ed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their #edding@ the fact that
private respondents filed a case against petitioners belies such assertion. Clearly"
petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the video
tape. Considering that private respondents #ere about to leave for the 0nited States"
they too> care to inform petitioners that they #ould <ust claim the tape upon their return
t#o months later. ,hus" the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty days #as
un<ustified.
In this regard" 8rticle )/ of the Civil Code provides that Athose #ho in the
performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud" negligence or delay" and those #ho
is any manner contravene the tenor thereof" are liable for damages.=
In the instant case" petitioners and private respondents entered into a contract
#hereby" for a fee" the former undertoo> to cover the latter1s #edding and deliver to
them a video copy of said event. 3or #hatever reason" petitioners failed to provide
private respondents #ith their tape. Clearly" petitioners are guilty of contravening their
obligation to said private respondents and are thus liable for damages.
,he grant of actual or compensatory damages in the amount of &:./.// is <ustified"
as reimbursement of the do#npayment paid by private respondents to petitioners.
[-!
Benerally" moral damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract
because this case is not among those enumerated in 8rticle 44* of the Civil
Code. 'o#ever" it is also accepted in this <urisdiction that liability for a quasi-delict may
still e$ist despite the presence of contractual relations" that is" the act #hich violates the
contract may also constitute a quasi-delict.
[)!
Conse9uently" moral damages are
recoverable for the breach of contract #hich #as palpably #anton" rec>less" malicious
or in bad faith" oppresive or abusive.
[+!
&etitioners1 act or omission in rec>lessly erasing the video coverage of private
respondents1 #edding #as precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents had
to undergo.
8s the appellate court aptly observed%
'onsidering the sentimental %alue of the tapes and the fact that the e%ent therein
recorded 7 a wedding which in our culture is a significant milestone to be cherished
and remembered 7 could no longer be reenacted and was lost fore%er, the trial court
was correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in the amount
of)-+,,,,.,,, which was a great reduction from plaintiffs. demand in the complaint,
in compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and
humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the circumstances could be
awarded as allowed under #rticles !!1- and !!14 of the 'i%il 'ode.2
89:
Considering the attendant #anton negligence committed by petitioners in the case
at bar" the a#ard of e$emplary damages by the trial court is <ustified
[/!
to serve as a
#arning to all entities engaged in the same business to observe due diligence in the
conduct of their affairs.
,he a#ard of attorney1s fees and litigation e$penses are li>e#ise proper" consistent
#ith 8rticle 44/+
[!
of the Civil Code.
3inally" petitioner 8le$ Bo 9uestions the finding of the trial and appellate courts
holding him <ointly and severally liable #ith his #ife Nancy regarding the pecuniary
liabilities imposed. 'e argues that #hen his #ife entered into the contract #ith private
respondent" she #as acting alone for her sole interest.
[4!
2e find merit in this contention. 0nder 8rticle ) of the Civil Code Cno# 8rticle )5
of the 3amily CodeD" the #ife may e$ercise any profession" occupation or engage in
business #ithout the consent of the husband. In the instant case" #e are convinced that
it #as only petitioner Nancy Bo #ho entered into the contract #ith private respondent.
Conse9uently" #e rule that she is solely liable to private respondents for the damages
a#arded belo#" pursuant to the principle that contracts produce effect only as bet#een
the parties #ho e$ecute them.
[5!
&HEREFORE" the assailed decision dated September :" **5 is hereby
833I6EED #ith the EODI3IC8,ION that petitioner 8le$ Bo is absolved from any
liability to private respondents and that petitioner Nancy Bo is solely liable to said
private respondents for the <udgment a#ard. Costs against petitioners.
O ORDERED.
Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
[!
Section 4" 8rticle FV" *+) Constitution.
[4!
Rollo, pp. .G45.
[5!
Ibid." p. ).
[:!
Section 5CeD" 6ule 5 of the 6ules of Court states" HCtDhat evidence #illfully suppressed #ould be
adverse if produced.H
[.!
Rollo" p. *.
[-!
8rticle 44//" Civil Code of the &hilippines.
[)!
&868S" Civil Code of the &hilippines" V" **/" pp. **.G**-" Singson . 7an> of the &hilippine Islands"
45 SC68 ) C*-+D.
[+!
,O;EN,INO" COEEEN,86IES I (06IS&60DENCE ON ,'E CIVI; CODE O3 ,'E &'I;I&&INES" V"
**." p. -.-.
[*!
Rollo" p. 5).
[/!
8rticle 4454" Civil Code of the &hilippines.
[!
H86,. 44/+. In the absence of stipulation" attorneyJs fees and e$penses of litigation" other than <udicial
costs" cannot be recovered" e$cept%
CD 2hen e$emplary damages are a#arded@
$$$ $$$ $$$H
[4!
Rollo" p. 45.
[5!
8rticle 5" Civil Code of the &hilippines.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi