Oblicon-Cases.2ndWave (2)

7/25/2019 Oblicon-Cases.2ndWave (2)

1/49

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 61594 September 28, 1990

PAKSTAN NTERNATONA! AR!NES CORPORATON, petitioner,

vs

"ON. #!AS $. OP!E, %& '%( )*p*)%t+ *( M%&%(ter o !*bor- "ON. CENTE !EOGAR/O, R., %& '%(

)*p*)%t+ *( /ept+ M%&%(ter- ET"E!NNE #. $ARRA!ES *&3 MARA MOONEEN

MAMASG, respondents.

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles for petitioner.

Ledesma, Saludo & Associates for private respondents.

$E!CANO, J.:

On Dece!ber "#$%, petitioner Pa&istan International 'irlines (orporation )*PI'*+, a forein corporation

licensed to do business in the Philippines, e-ecuted in Manila to )+ separate contracts of e!plo/!ent, one

ith private respondent 0thel/nne 1. 2arrales and the other ith private respondent Ma. M.(. Ma!asi. 1The

contracts, hich beca!e effective on # 3anuar/ "#$#, provided in pertinent portion as follos4

5. DURA!"# "$ %ML"'M%# A#D %#AL'

This aree!ent is for a period of three )6+ /ears, but can be e-tended b/ the !utual consentof the parties.

--- --- ---

7. %RM!#A!"#

--- --- ---

Notithstandin an/thin to contrar/ as herein provided, PI' reserves the riht to ter!inate

this aree!ent at an/ ti!e b/ ivin the 0MP8O900 notice in ritin in advance one !onth

before the intended ter!ination or in lieu thereof, b/ pa/in the 0MP8O900 aes e:uivalent

to one !onth;s salar/.

--- --- ---

"


2/49

This aree!ent shall be construed and overned under and b/ the las of Pa&istan, and onl/

the (ourts of >arachi, Pa&istan shall have the ?urisdiction to consider an/ !atter arisin out of

or under this aree!ent.

Respondents then co!!enced trainin in Pa&istan. 'fter their trainin period, the/ bean discharin their ?ob

functions as fliht attendants, ith base station in Manila and fl/in assin!ents to different parts of the Middle

0ast and 0urope.

On 'uust "#%


3/49

the 'rbitration 1ranch of the National 8abor Relations (o!!ission )*N8R(*+ It appears to us be/ond dispute,

hoever, that both at the ti!e the co!plaint as initiated in Septe!ber "#%< and at the ti!e the Orders

assailed ere rendered on 3anuar/ "#%" )b/ Reional Director 2rancisco 8. 0strella+ and 'uust "#% )b/

Deput/ Minister Vicente 8eoardo, 3r.+, the Reional Director had ?urisdiction over ter!ination cases.

'rt. $% of the 8abor (ode, as it then e-isted, forbade the ter!ination of the services of e!plo/ees ith at least

one )"+ /ear of service ithout prior clearance fro! the Depart!ent of 8abor and 0!plo/!ent4

'rt. $%. Miscellaneous rovisions ) . . .

)b+ =ith or ithout a collective aree!ent, no e!plo/er !a/ shut don his establish!ent or

dis!iss or ter!inate the e!plo/!ent of e!plo/ees ith at least one /ear of service durin the

last to )+ /ears, hether such service is continuous or bro&en, ithout prior ritten authorit/

issued in accordance ith such rules and reulations as the Secretar/ !a/ pro!ulate . . .

)e!phasis supplied+

Rule GIV, 1oo& No. 5 of the Rules and Reulations I!ple!entin the 8abor (ode, !ade clear that in

case of a ter!ination ithout the necessar/ clearance, the Reional Director as authoriEed to order

the reinstate!ent of the e!plo/ee concerned and the pa/!ent of bac&aes necessaril/, therefore,

the Reional Director !ust have been iven ?urisdiction over such ter!ination cases4

Sec. . S*utdo+n or dismissal +it*out clearance. 'n/ shutdon or dis!issal ithout prior

clearance shall be conclusivel/ presu!ed to be ter!ination of e!plo/!ent ithout a ?ust

cause. The Reional Director shall, in such case order the i!!ediate reinstate!ent of the

e!plo/ee and the pa/!ent of his aes fro! the ti!e of the shutdon or dis!issal until the

ti!e of reinstate!ent. )e!phasis supplied+

Polic/ Instruction No. "@ issued b/ the Secretar/ of 8abor, dated 6 'pril "#$7, as si!ilarl/ ver/

e-plicit about the ?urisdiction of the Reional Director over ter!ination of e!plo/!ent cases4

Fnder PD %5


4/49

sub!it not onl/ its position paper but also such evidence in its favor as it !iht have. Petitioner opted to

rel/ solel/ upon its position paper e !ust assu!e it had no evidence to sustain its assertions. Thus,

even if no for!al or oral hearin as conducted, petitioner had a!ple opportunit/ to e-plain its side.

Moreover, petitioner PI' as able to appeal his case to the Ministr/ of 8abor and 0!plo/!ent.

There is another reason h/ petitioner;s clai! of denial of due process !ust be re?ected. 't the ti!e the

co!plaint as filed b/ private respondents on " Septe!ber "#%< and at the ti!e the Reional Director issued

his :uestioned order on 3anuar/ "#%", applicable reulation, as noted above, specified that a *dis!issal

ithout prior clearance shall be conclusivel/presumed to be terminationof e!plo/!ent +it*out a cause*, and

the Reional Director as re:uired in such case to* order the i!!ediate reinstate!ent of the e!plo/ee and the

pa/!ent of his aes fro! the ti!e of the shutdon or dis!iss until . . . reinstate!ent.* In other ords, under

the then applicable rule, the Reional Director did not even have to re:uire sub!ission of position papers b/

the parties in vie of the conclusive -uris et de -ure+ character of the presu!ption created b/ such applicable

la and reulation. In (ebu !nstitute of ec*nology v. Minister of Labor and %mployment, 8the (ourt pointed

out that *under Rule "@, Section , of the I!ple!entin Rules and Reulations, the ter!ination of Aan

e!plo/eeB hich as ithout previous clearance fro! the Ministr/ of 8abor is conclusivel/ presu!ed to

be ithout A?ustB cause . . . Aa presu!ption hichB cannot be overturned b/ an/ contrar/ proof hoever

stron.*

6. In its third contention, petitioner PI' invo&es pararaphs 5 and 7 of its contract of e!plo/!ent ith private

respondents 2arrales and Ma!asi, aruin that its relationship ith the! as overned b/ the provisions of

its contract rather than b/ the eneral provisions of the 8abor (ode. 9

Pararaph 5 of that contract set a ter! of three )6+ /ears for that relationship, e-tendible b/ aree!ent

beteen the parties hile pararaph 7 provided that, notithstandin an/ other provision in the (ontract, PI'

had the riht to ter!inate the e!plo/!ent aree!ent at an/ ti!e b/ ivin oneC!onth;s notice to the e!plo/ee

or, in lieu of such notice, oneC!onths salar/.

' contract freel/ entered into should, of course, be respected, as PI' arues, since a contract is the la

beteen the parties.

10

The principle of part/ autono!/ in contracts is not, hoever, an absolute principle.The rule in 'rticle "6


5/49

'n e!plo/ee ho is un?ustl/ dis!issed fro! or& shall be entitled to reinstate!ent ithout

loss of seniorit/ rihts and to his bac&aes co!puted fro! the ti!e his co!pensation as

ithheld fro! hi! up to the ti!e his reinstate!ent.

'rt. %". Regular and (asual %mployment. The provisions of ritten aree!ent to the

contrar/ notithstandin and reardless of the oral aree!ents of the parties, an e!plo/!ent

shall be dee!ed to be reular here the e!plo/ee has been enaed to perfor! activitieshich are usuall/ necessar/ or desirable in the usual business or trade of the e!plo/er,

e-cept here the e!plo/!ent has been fi-ed for a specific pro?ect or underta&in the

co!pletion or ter!ination of hich has been deter!ined at the ti!e of the enae!ent of the

e!plo/ee or here the or& or services to be perfor!ed is seasonal in nature and the

e!plo/!ent is for the duration of the season.

'n e!plo/!ent shall be dee!ed to be casual if it is not covered b/ the precedin pararaph4

provided, that, any employee +*o *as rendered at least one year of service, +*et*er suc*

service is continuous or bro/en, s*all be considered as regular employeeith respect to the

activit/ in hich he is e!plo/ed and his e!plo/!ent shall continue hile such actuall/ e-ists.

)0!phasis supplied+

In Brent Sc*ool, !nc., et al. v. Ronaldo 0amora, etc., et al., 12the (ourt had occasion to e-a!ine in detail the

:uestion of hether e!plo/!ent for a fi-ed ter! has been outlaed under the above :uoted provisions of

the 8abor (ode. 'fter an e-tensive e-a!ination of the histor/ and develop!ent of 'rticles %< and %",

the (ourt reached the conclusion that a contract providin for e!plo/!ent ith a fi-ed period as not

necessaril/ unlaful4

There can of course be no :uarrel ith the proposition that +*ere from t*e circumstances it is

apparent t*at periods *ave been imposed to preclude ac1uisition of tenurial security by t*e

employee, t*ey s*ould be struc/ do+n or disregarded as contrary to public policy, morals, etc.

1ut here no such intent to circu!vent the la is shon, or stated otherise, here the

reason for the la does not e-ist e.. here it is indeed the e!plo/ee hi!self ho insists

upon a period or here the nature of the enae!ent is such that, ithout bein seasonal or

for a specific pro?ect, a definite date of ter!ination is a sine 1ua non ould an aree!ent

fi-in a period be essentiall/ evil or illicit, therefore anathe!a =ould such an aree!ent co!e

ithin the scope of 'rticle %< hich ad!ittedl/ as enacted *to prevent the circu!vention of

the riht of the e!plo/ee to be secured in . . . )his+ e!plo/!ent*

's it is evident fro! even onl/ the three e-a!ples alread/ iven thatArticle 234 of t*e Labor

(ode, under a narro+ and literal interpretation, not only fails to e5*aust t*e gamut of

employment contracts to +*ic* t*e lac/ of a fi5ed period +ould be an anomaly, but +ould also

appear to restrict, +it*out reasonable distinctions, t*e rig*t of an employee to freely stipulate

+it* *is employer t*e duration of *is engagement, it logically follo+s t*at suc* a literal

interpretation s*ould be esc*e+ed or avoided. The la !ust be iven reasonable

interpretation, to preclude absurdit/ in its application. Outlain the hole concept of ter!

e!plo/!ent and subvertin to boot the principle of freedo! of contract to re!ed/ the evil of

e!plo/ers* usin it as a !eans to prevent their e!plo/ees fro! obtainin securit/ of tenure is

li&e cuttin off the nose to spite the face or, !ore relevantl/, curin a headache b/ loppin off

the head.

--- --- ---


6/49

'ccordinl/, and since the entire purpose behind the develop!ent of leislation cul!inatin in

the present 'rticle %< of the 8abor (ode clearl/ appears to have been, as alread/ observed,

to prevent circu!vention of the e!plo/ee;s riht to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said

article indiscri!inatel/ and co!pletel/ rulin out all ritten or oral aree!ents conflictin ith

the concept of reular e!plo/!ent as defined therein should be construed to refer to the

substantive evil that the (ode itself has sinled out4 aree!ents entered into precisel/ to

circu!vent securit/ of tenure. It should have no application to instances here a fi-ed periodof e!plo/!ent as areed upon &noinl/ and voluntaril/ b/ the parties, ithout an/ force,

duress or i!proper pressure bein brouht to bear upon the e!plo/ee and absent an/ other

circu!stances vitiatin his consent, or here it satisfactoril/ appears that the e!plo/er and

e!plo/ee dealt ith each other on !ore or less e:ual ter!s ith no !oral do!inance

hatever bein e-ercised b/ the for!er over the latter. Unless t*us limited in its purvie+, t*e

la+ +ould be made to apply to purposes ot*er t*an t*ose e5plicitly stated by its framers6 it

t*us becomes pointless and arbitrary, un-ust in its effects and apt to lead to absurd and

unintended conse1uences. )e!phasis supplied+

It is apparent fro! Brent Sc*oolthat the critical consideration is the presence or absence of a

substantial indication that the period specified in an e!plo/!ent aree!ent as desined to

circu!vent the securit/ of tenure of reular e!plo/ees hich is provided for in 'rticles %< and %" ofthe 8abor (ode. This indication !ust ordinaril/ rest upon so!e aspect of the aree!ent other than the

!ere specification of a fi-ed ter! of the ernplo/!ent aree!ent, or upon evidence aliundeof the

intent to evade.

0-a!inin the provisions of pararaphs 5 and 7 of the e!plo/!ent aree!ent beteen petitioner PI' and

private respondents, e consider that those provisions !ust be read toether and hen so read, the fi-ed

period of three )6+ /ears specified in pararaph 5 ill be seen to have been effectivel/ neutraliEed b/ the

provisions of pararaph 7 of that aree!ent. Pararaph 7 in effect too& bac& fro! the e!plo/ee the fi-ed three

)6+C/ear period ostensibl/ ranted b/ pararaph 5 b/ renderin such period in effect a facultative one at the

option of the e!plo/er PI'. 2or petitioner PI' clai!s to be authoriEed to shorten that ter!, at an/ ti!e and for

an/ cause satisfactor/ to itself, to a oneC!onth period, or even less b/ si!pl/ pa/in the e!plo/ee a !onth;s

salar/. 1ecause the net effect of pararaphs 5 and 7 of the aree!ent here involved is to render thee!plo/!ent of private respondents 2arrales and Ma!asi basicall/ e!plo/!ent at the pleasure of petitioner

PI', the (ourt considers that pararaphs 5 and 7 ere intended to prevent an/ securit/ of tenure fro! accruin

in favor of private respondents even during t*e limited period of t*ree 78 years ,1and thus to escape

co!pletel/ the thrust of 'rticles %< and %" of the 8abor (ode.

Petitioner PI' cannot ta&e refue in pararaph "< of its e!plo/!ent aree!ent hich specifies, firstl/, the la

of Pa&istan as the applicable la of the aree!ent and, secondl/, la/s the venue for settle!ent of an/ dispute

arisin out of or in connection ith the aree!ent *onlyAinB courts of >arachi Pa&istan*. The first clause of

pararaph "< cannot be invo&ed to prevent the application of Philippine labor las and reulations to the

sub?ect !atter of this case, i.e., the e!plo/erCe!plo/ee relationship beteen petitioner PI' and private

respondents. =e have alread/ pointed out that the relationship is !uch affected ith public interest and that

the otherise applicable Philippine las and reulations cannot be rendered illusor/ b/ the parties areeinupon so!e other la to overn their relationship. Neither !a/ petitioner invo&e the second clause of pararaph

"arachi courts as the sole venue for the settle!ent of dispute beteen the contractin

parties. 0ven a cursor/ scrutin/ of the relevant circu!stances of this case ill sho the !ultiple and

substantive contacts beteen Philippine la and Philippine courts, on the one hand, and the relationship

beteen the parties, upon the other4 the contract as not onl/ e-ecuted in the Philippines, it as also

perfor!ed here, at least partiall/ private respondents are Philippine citiEens and respondents, hile petitioner,

althouh a forein corporation, is licensed to do business )and actuall/ doin business+ and hence resident in

the Philippines lastl/, private respondents ere based in the Philippines in beteen their assined flihts to the


7/49

Middle 0ast and 0urope. 'll the above contacts point to the Philippine courts and ad!inistrative aencies as a

proper foru! for the resolution of contractual disputes beteen the parties. Fnder these circu!stances,

pararaph "< of the e!plo/!ent aree!ent cannot be iven effect so as to oust Philippine aencies and

courts of the ?urisdiction vested upon the! b/ Philippine la. 2inall/, and in an/ event, the petitioner PI' did not

underta&e to plead and prove the contents of Pa&istan la on the !atter it !ust therefore be presu!ed that

the applicable provisions of the la of Pa&istan are the sa!e as the applicable provisions of Philippine la.14

=e conclude that private respondents 2arrales and Ma!asi ere illeall/ dis!issed and that public

respondent Deput/ Minister, MO80, had not co!!itted an/ rave abuse of discretion nor an/ act ithout or in

e-cess of ?urisdiction in orderin their reinstate!ent ith bac&aes. Private respondents are entitled to three

)6+ /ears bac&aes ithout :ualification or deduction. Should their reinstate!ent to their for!er or other

substantiall/ e:uivalent positions not be feasible in vie of the lenth of ti!e hich has one b/ since their

services ere unlafull/ ter!inated, petitioner should be re:uired to pa/ separation pa/ to private respondents

a!ountin to one )"+ !onth;s salar/ for ever/ /ear of service rendered b/ the!, includin the three )6+ /ears

service putativel/ rendered.

'((ORDINJ89, the Petition for certiorari is hereb/ DISMISS0D for lac& of !erit, and the Order dated "

'uust "#% of public respondent is hereb/ '22IRM0D, e-cept that )"+ private respondents are entitled to

three )6+ /ears bac&aes, ithout deduction or :ualification and )+ should reinstate!ent of privaterespondents to their for!er positions or to substantiall/ e:uivalent positions not be feasible, then petitioner

shall, in lieu thereof, pa/ to private respondents separation pa/ a!ountin to one )"+C!onth;s salar/ for ever/

/ear of service actuall/ rendered b/ the! and for the three )6+ /ears putative service b/ private respondents.

The Te!porar/ Restrainin Order issued on "6 Septe!ber "#% is hereb/ 8I2T0D. (osts aainst petitioner.

SO ORD0R0D.

$ernan (.9., (*airman8, :utierre;, 9r., Bidin and (ort


8/49

"< Henson v. Inter!ediate 'ppellate (ourt, "@% S(R' "" )"#%$+.

"" (o!!issioner of Internal Revenue v. Fnited 8ines (o., 5 S(R' "$5 )"#7+.

" J.R. No. 8C@%@#@, pro!ulated 5 2ebruar/ "##


9/49

AP,J.:

This is an appeal fro! the order of the (ourt of 2lint Instance of (otabato dated 3anuar/ @,"#7% dis!issin

plaintiffsCappellants; co!plaint and fro! its order dated Ma/ %,"#7%, den/in their !otion for reconsideration.

The co!plaint, filed b/ plaintiffsCappellants aainst the spouses Di!as (asa and Maria (astor, the defendantsC

appellees herein, as for alleed unlaful acts of dispossession disturbin plaintiffs peaceful, continuous,open, uninterrupted adverse and public possession of the propert/ in :uestion. In their co!plaint, plaintiffs also

souht to annull the oriinal certificate of title issued b/ the Reister of Deeds for the province of (otabato in

favor of defendant spouses pursuant to a Ho!estead Patent on the round that said patent as obtained b/

defendant spouses throuh fraud and !isrepresentation b/ statin, a!on others, in their application, that the

lot as not clai!ed and occupied b/ another person. Plaintiffs alleed that on 3une "5, "#7$, the/ purchased

fro! the defendants to )+ hectares of the afore!entioned parcel of land, it bein areed in the deed of sale

that the said portion ould be reconve/ed to plaintiffs after the fiveC/ear prohibitor/ period, as provided for in

the Ho!estead Patent 8a, shall have elapsed, and that defendants failed to abide b/ said aree!ent.

The defendants !oved to dis!iss the co!plaint, based on the folloin rounds4 )"+ the co!plaint is barred b/

prescription, since thirteen /ears had elapsed fro! the issuance of the ho!estead patent before the action as

filed )+ plaintiff has no cause of action, since the deed of sale e-ecuted on 3une "5, "#5 or prior to theapproval of the application and issuance of the ho!estead patent as null and void and inoperative to conve/

the land in :uestion, hich as at that ti!e still public land and )6+ plaintiff is not the proper part/ to institute

the action to annul the ho!estead patent.

In their opposition to the !otion to dis!iss, plaintiffs averred that the/ ere not assailin the validit/ of the

patent as a hole, but onl/ ith respect to that portion of to )+ hectares oned b/ the! hich defendants,

throuh fraud, ere able to reister in their na!e. 1ecause of such fraud, the action of the plaintiffs cannot be

dee!ed to have prescribed, since such action can be brouht ithin four )@+ /ears fro! discover/ of the fraud.

Moreover, the defense of prescription can not be set up in an action to recover propert/ held in trust b/ a

person for another. On 3anuar/ @, "#7%, the court a :uo issued the :uestioned order dis!issin the co!plaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the case to the (ourt of 'ppeals, assinin the folloin errors4

". The loer court erred in holdin that the alleations in the co!plaint do not confor! ith

the ter!s and conditions of the contract as to a!ount to a ?ustifiable cause of action.

. The loer court erred in holdin that the plaintiffsCappellants have no personalit/ to brin

the present action as the/ do not see& the land for the!selves but for the overn!ent.

6. The loer court erred in holdin that the present action based on fraud is barred b/ the

statute of li!itations.

@. 2inall/, the loer court erred in holdin that the deed of sale is not laful as the sa!e as

!ade to circu!vent the provisions of the Public 8and 'ct.

The (ourt of 'ppeals certified the case to this (ourt as it involved onl/ :uestions of la.

=e find no !erit in the petition. The loer court co!!itted no reversible error in dis!issin the co!plaint.

1asicall/, the plaintiffs; supposed cause of action rests upon the deed of sale e-ecuted b/ defendants in their

favor on 3une "5, "#7 herein the latter sold a toChectare portion of the ho!estead hich the/ ere

appl/in for to the plaintiffs on the understandin that the actual conve/ance of the said portion to plaintiffs


10/49

ould be !ade onl/ after the lapse of the fiveC/ear period durin hich, under the Public 8and 'ct, the

ho!estead oner as prohibited fro! transferrin his rihts. The aree!ent is clearl/ illeal and void ab initio

it is intended to circu!vent and violate the la. 's parties to a void contract, the plaintiffs have no rihts hich

the/ can enforce and the court can not lend itself to its enforce!ent. Plaintiffs can neither invo&e the doctrine of

i!plied trust based on an illeal contract. The issue of prescription or laches beco!es irrelevant in a case such

as this, here plaintiffs clearl/ have no cause of action.

=H0R02OR0, the petition is hereb/ D0NI0D and the orders appealed fro! are '22IRM0D.

SO ORD0R0D.

Melencio=>errera, aras, adilla and Sarmiento, 99., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila


11/49

S0(OND DIVISION

G.R. No. !65425 Noember 5, 198

RENEO !EA!, OSE !EA!, CATA!NA !EA!, #ERNA#E!A !EA!, CENTE !EA! EUOGA !EA!PATERNO RAMOS, MACARO /E! ROSARO, MARGARTA A!#ERTO, CTORA TORRES, USTNA

MANUE!, U!AN MANUE!, ME!ANA SANTOS, C!EMENTE SAMARO, MARKNA A!!E, NC.,MGUE!A MEN/O7A, *&3 REGSTER O$ /EE/S O$ R7A!, petitioners,vs.T"E "ONORA#!E NTERME/ATE APPE!!ATE COURT 4t' C%%: C*(e( /%%(%o&;, *&3 CENTESANTAGO Sb(t%tte3 b+ SA!U/ M. SANTAGO;, respondents.

SARMENTO, J.:

In its resolution dated Septe!ber $, "#%6, the respondent Inter!ediate 'ppellate (ourt, 1spea&in throuh 3usticePorfirio V, Sison, ordered, in part, the petitioners to accept the su! of P5,7


12/49

as abolished and in lieu of hich the Inter!ideate 'ppellate (ourt as established In vie of the saidreoraniEation, case as reassined to the 2ourth (ivil in this cases Division.

Resolvin the abovestated !otion for reconsideration, the respondent court, in a resolution penned b/ 3usticeSison and pro!ulated on Septe!ber $, "#%6, ruled, as follos4

=H0R02OR0, Our decision of 3une %, "#$% is hereb/ reversed and set aside and anotherone is rendered orderin4 )"+ defendantsCappellees surna!ed 8eal to accept the su! ofP5,7


13/49

=e aree ith the Parasponencia.

(ontracts are enerall/ bindin beteen the parties, their assins and heirs hoever, under 'rt. "55 of the(ivil (ode of Spain, hich is applicable in this instance, pacts, clauses, and conditions hich are contrar/ topublic order are null and void, thus, ithout an/ bindin effect.

Parentheticall/, the e:uivalent provision in the (ivil (ode of the Philippines is that of 'rt. "6


14/49

resolution )3ustice Sison+ is rather strained. The phrase *in case case* of should be construed to !ean *shouldthe bu/ers ish to sell hich is the plain and si!ple i!port of the ords, and not *the bu/ers should sell,*hich is clearl/ a contorted construction of the sa!e phrase. The resort to 'rticle "6$6 of the (ivil (ode of thePhilippines is erroneous. The sub?ect phrase is patent and una!biuous, hence, it !ust not be iven anotherinterpretation

1ut even assu!in that such a riht of repurchase is ranted under the *(o!praventa,* the petitioner correctl/asserts that the sa!e has alread/ prescribed. Fnder 'rt. "5


15/49

% 'rt. "5


16/49


SUPREME COURT

Manila

S0(OND DIVISION

G.R. No. !65510 M*r)' 9, 198

TEA MARKETNG AN/


17/49

underta&e the /earl/ reistration of the !otorc/cle ith the 8and Transportation (o!!ission.

Pursuant to this aree!ent the defendant on 2ebruar/ , "#$7 ave the plaintiff P#


18/49

0ventuall/, petitioner Te?a Mar&etin andor 'nel 3aucian filed an action for *Su! of Mone/ ith Da!aes*

aainst private respondent Pedro N. Nale in the (it/ (ourt of Naa (it/. The (it/ (ourt rendered ?ud!ent in

favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of hich reads4

=H0R02OR0, decision is hereb/ rendered dis!issin the counterclai! and orderin the

defendant to pa/ plaintiff the su! of P",$


19/49

here it finds then. Fpon this pre!ise it ould be error to accord the parties relief fro! their predica!ent.

'rticle "@" of the (ivil (ode denies the! such aid. It provides4

'rt. "@". If the act in hich the unlaful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a

cri!inal offense, the folloin rules shall be observed4

". =hen the fault is on the part of both contractin parties, neither !a/ recover that he hasiven b/ virtue of the contract, or de!and, the perfor!ance of the other;s underta&in.

The defect of in e-istence of a contract is per!anent and cannot be cured b/ ratification or b/ prescription. The

!ere lapse of ti!e cannot ive efficac/ to contracts that are null and void.

=H0R02OR0, the petition is hereb/ dis!issed for lac& of !erit. The assailed decision of the Inter!ediate

'ppellate (ourt )no the (ourt of 'ppeals+ is '22IRM0D. No costs.

SO ORD0R0D.

$ernan (*airman8, :utierre;, 9r., adilla, Bidin and (orte;, 99., concur.

Alampay, 9., too/ no part.

$oot&ote(

Penned b/ 3ustice (arolina (. JrioC':uino concurred in b/ 3ustices Nestor 1. 'la!pa/

and Re/nato S. Puno.


20/49


SUPREME COURT

Manila

0N 1'N(

G.R. No. !1018 &e 29, 19

!OREN7O E!ASCO AN/ SOCORRO . E!ASCO, petitioners,

vs.

"ONORA#!E COURT O$ APPEA!S *&3 MAG/A!ENA ESTATE, NC., respondents.

#apoleon :. Rama for petitioners.

Dominador L. Reyes for private respondent.

CASTRO, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed b/ 8orenEo Velasco and Socorro 3. Velasco )hereinafter

referred to as the petitioners+ aainst the resolution of the (ourt of 'ppeals dated 3une %, "#7# in ('CJ.R.

@6$7, hich ordered the dis!issal of the appeal interposed b/ the petitioners fro! a decision of the (ourt of

2irst Instance of KueEon (it/ on the round that the/ had failed seasonabl/ to file their printed record on

appeal.


21/49

Fnder date of Nove!ber 6, "#7%, the (ourt of 2irst Instance of KueEon (it/, after hearin on the !erits,

rendered a decision in civil case $$7", dis!issin the co!plaint filed b/ the petitioners aainst the Madalena

0state, Inc. )hereinafter referred to as the respondent+ for the purpose of co!pellin specific perfor!ance b/

the respondent of an alleed deed of sale of a parcel of residential land in favor of the petitioners. The basis for

the dis!issal of the co!plaint as that the alleed purchase and sale aree!ent *as not perfected*.

On Nove!ber "%, "#7%, after the perfection of their appeal to the (ourt of 'ppeals, the petitioners received anotice fro! the said court re:uirin the! to file their printed record on appeal ithin si-t/ )7


22/49

da/s fro! notice h/ he should not be suspended fro! the practice of his necessar/

investiation aainst 3uanito D. Kuiachon of the Salona, OrdoeE, 9ap, Sicat 'ssociates

8a Office, Suite 6"# 66$ Rufino 1uildin, '/ala 'venue, Ma&ati Post Office, to file the

appropriate cri!inal action aainst the! as !a/ be arranted in the pre!ises, and to report

to this (ourt ithin thirt/ )6


23/49

further, and he said that the letters ere not so i!portant and that his onl/

concern as to have the! post !a&er 3anuar/ "5, "#7#

;That believin the ord of 3F'NITO D. KFI'(HON that the letters ere not

reall/ i!portant I areed to his re:uest hereupon, I ot to )+ reistr/

receipts fro! an old reistr/ receipt boo&let hich is no loner bein used

and I nu!bered the!


24/49

(ourt of 'ppeals, Manila, and the accused Malindo, accedin to the induce!ent of, and in

conspirac/ ith, his coCaccused 3ohn Doe, did then and there illfull/ and feloniousl/ falsif/

said reistr/ receipts of the Ma&ati Post Office on 3anuar/ "5, "#7#, thereb/ !a&in it appear

that the said sealed envelopes addressed to 'tt/. Sar!iento and the (ourt of 'ppeals ere

actuall/ posted, and causin it to appear that the Post!aster of Ma&ati participated therein b/

postin said !ail !atters on 3anuar/ "5, "#7#, hen in truth and in fact he did not so

participate.

The petitioner contend that in pro!ulatin its :uestioned resolution, the (ourt of 'ppeals acted ithout or in

e-cess of ?urisdiction, or ith such hi!sical and rave abuse of discretion as to a!ount to lac& of ?urisdiction,

because )a+ it declared that the !otion for e-tension of ti!e to file the printed record on appeal as not !ailed

on 3anuar/ "5, "#7#, hen, in fact, it as !ailed on the record on appeal as filed onl/ on 2ebruar/ "


25/49

of the !ail carrier Malindo describin ho the said reistr/ receipts ca!e to be issued, are orth/ of belief. It

ill be observed that the said certifications e-plain clearl/ and in detail ho it as i!probable that the

petitioners; counsel in the ordinar/ course of official business, hile Malindo;s sorn state!ent, hich

constitutes a ver/ rave ad!ission aainst his on interest, provides a!ple basis for a findin that here

official dut/ as not perfor!ed it as at the behest of a person interested in the petitioners; side of the action

belo. That at the preli!inar/ investiation at the 2iscal;s office, Malindo failed to identif/ Kuiachon as the

person ho induced hi! to issue falsified receipts, contrar/ to hat he declared in his affidavit, is of no !o!entsince the findins of the in:uest fiscal as reflected in the infor!ation for falsification filed aainst Malindo

indicate that so!eone did induce Malindo to !a&e and issue false reistr/ receipts to the counsel for the

petitioners.

This (ourt held in Bello vs. $ernando1that the riht to appeal is nota natural riht nor a part of due process

it is !erel/ a statutor/ privilee, and !a/ be e-ercised onl/ in the !anner provided b/ la. In this

connection, the Rule of (ourt e-pressl/ !a&es it the dut/ of an appellant to file a printed record on appeal

ith the (ourt of 'ppeals ithin si-t/ )7


26/49

In further assailin the :uestioned resolution of the (ourt of 'ppeals, the petitioners also point out that on the

!erits the e:uities of the instant case are in their favor. ' readin of the record, hoever, persuades us that the

?ud!ent a 1uo is substantiall/ correct and !orall/ ?ust.

The appealed decision of the court a :uo narrates both the alleed and proven facts of the dispute beteen the

petitioners and the respondent, as follos4

This is a suit for specific perfor!ance filed b/ 8orenEo Velasco aainst the Madalena 0state,

Inc. on the alleation that on Nove!ber #, "#7 the plaintiff and the defendant had entered

into a contract of sale )'nne- ' of the co!plaint+ b/ virtue of hich the defendant offered to

sell the plaintiff and the plaintiff in turn areed to bu/ a parcel of land ith an area of ,


27/49

re:uested her to !a&e the necessar/ contacts ith defendant referrin to the purchase of the

propert/ in :uestion. 1ecause he does not understand 0nlish ell, he had authoriEed her to

neotiate ith the defendant in her henever she ent to the office of the defendant, and as a

!atter of fact, the receipt for the P"


28/49

herein under article "@% of the ne (ivil (ode, as the petitioners the!selves ad!it that so!e essential

!atter the ter!s of pa/!ent still had to be !utuall/ covenanted.

'((ORDINJ89, the instant petitioner is hereb/ denied. No pronounce!ent as to costs.

Ma/alintal, Ma/asiar and %sguerra, 99., concur.

$ernando, 9., too/ no part.

Barredo, 9.@ *e petitioners *aving clearly and +it*out sufficient -ustification failed to prosecute t*eir appeal

+it*in t*e period allo+ed by t*e rules, ! vote to deny t*e petition, and consistently +it* my vie+ already

e5pressed on previous occasions, any discussion of t*e merits of t*e appeal is un+arranted, particularly, in

instances li/e t*e present, +*erein t*e same does not appear to me, upon cursory e5amination to be beyond

doubt..

Sep*r*te Op%&%o&(

TEE"ANKEE, J., dissentin4

I dissent fro! the !ain opinion penned b/ Mr. 3ustice (astro affir!in the appellate court;s dis!issal of

petitioner; pendin appeal before it because of late sub!ittal of the printed record on appeal )b/ @ da/s+, on

appeal hen the appeal as indisputabl/ ti!el/ perfected does not call for the i!position of the capitalpenalt/ of dis!issal of the appeal.

's in !/ separate opinion in Sison vs. :atc*alian1pro!ulated ?ust a fe ee&s earlier, I !ust note ith

ratification the special pains ta&en in the !ain opinion to discuss nevertheless the substance and !erit

of the aborted appeal and to record the (ourt;s polic/ in such cases )of dis!issal of appeals ti!el/

perfected for failure to co!pl/ ith certain re:uire!ents of the Rules+ of invariabl/ satisf/in itself that

there is *a rational basis for the result b/ the trial court* 2in the ?ud!ent souht to be revieed b/ the

appeal.

In the case at bar, hoever, I believe that the !erits and e:uities invo&ed b/ petitionersCappellants in support of

their action for specific perfor!ance of their aree!ent ith respondent for the purchase of the parcel of land

described in the co!plaint for the *aree!ent price )of+4 P"


29/49

Since to other !e!bers of the (ourt, vi;, 3ustices 1arredo and 'ntonio, have reserved their opinions on the

!erits of the appeals, as stated in their respective concurrences, I further consider this to be a case here the

para!ount considerations of substantial ?ustice !ust ta&e precedence over the lateness )b/ @ da/s+ in the

sub!ittal of theprinted record on appeal hich in no a/ can be clai!ed to have pre?udiced the substantial

rihts of respondent or dela/ed the cause of the ad!inistration of ?ustice and that accordinl/, such a

technical tranression on counsel;s part should not result in the drastic forfeiture of petitioners; riht of appeal

and of securin a possible of the adverse verdict of the loer court.

's stated b/ (hief 3ustice (oncepcion for the (ourt in (oncepcion vs. ayatas %state !mprovements (o.,

!nc.,*'fter all, pleadins, as ell as re!edial las, should b/ construed literall/, in order that litiants !a/

have a!ple opportunit/ to prove their respective clai!s, and that apossible denial of substantial -ustice,

due to legal tec*nicalities, !a/ be avoided.* This is but the ver/ !andate of the Rules of (ourt4 that the/

be *liberall/ construed in order to pro!ote theirob-ect and to assist the deter!ination of ever/ action and

proceedin*4and that *'ll pleadins shall be liberall/ construed so as to do substantial -ustice.*5

Here, the 4=day period for petitioners appellants *to sub!it .... fort/ )@


30/49

da/s late on 2ebruar/ "


31/49

late sub!ittal of the brief and of the correspondin !otions for e-tension )b/ less than a !onth;s ti!e+ is not

ran& failure to co!pl/ ith the rule;s re:uire!ents

The specific rule )Rule @7, section 5+ does not provided for dis!issal of the appeal for failure to sub!it

theprinted record on appeal hereas section $ of the rule prohibits *alternations, o!issions or additions to the

printed record* and does provide that *a violation of this prohibition shall be a round for dis!issal of the

appeal.*

0ven Rule 5


32/49

This is to stress that even thouh the provision of Republic 'ct 5@@< that such appeals shall be onl/ on

petitions for revie b/ petitions b/ certiorari and no loner as a !atter of riht b/ record on appeal is of a

!andator/ character, this (ourt has nevertheless adopted a liberal construction and chosen to appl/ the

principle of substantial ?ustice in favor of one hose appeal as actuall/ perfected on ti!e rather than to

sacrifice substance to for!. In the lanuae of Sonora, vis a vis the case at bar, *it is less than fair for

respondents to atte!pt to cut off )petitioners;+ riht to appeal b/ invo&in the literal !eanin of the lanuae of

the rules, disreardin their ise and practical construction alread/ laid don b/ the Supre!e (ourt.* 15

In sensu contrario, appl/in the sa!e principles of substantial ?ustice the (ourt has in !an/ cases see&in

!anda!us or reinstate!ent of disalloed appeals )althouh ti!el/ !ade+ loo&ed at the *substantive !erits* of

the proposed appeal and here *there is hardl/ an/ prospect of its bein ulti!atel/ sucessful,* denied

!anda!us, rulin as in %spiritu vs. ($! of (avite16that* this (ourt has alread/ ruled on several occasions,

since as earl/ as De la (ru; vs. Blanco, $6 Phil. 5#7 that !anda!us to co!pel approval and certification

of an appeal, even if otherise ell rounded, procedurall/ spea&in, has to be appeal itself, and ;it ould

serve no useful purpose to reinstate; the sa!e.* Lucas vs. Mariano 1as to the sa!e effect ith the

(ourt sustainin therein petitioner;s sub!ittal *that fro! the point of vie of the ti!e of the ta&in of the

appeal, petitioners, =e are sufficientl/ convinced that their clai! of title has no chance of bein sustained

even if other and further proceedins ere to be held in the court belo* and

2inall/, adherence to a liberal construction of the procedural rules in order to attain their ob?ective of

substantial ?ustice and of avoidin possible denials of substantial ?ustice due to procedural technicalities does

not !ean nonCenforce!ent of the Rules of (ourt hich are universall/ reconiEed to be necessar/ to the

orderl/ and speed/ dischare of ?udicial business ith the least dela/. (o!pliance ith the rules, hich are not

of !andator/ character )such as the period for perfectin appeals, failure to observe hich results in the

auto!atic penalt/ of loss of the riht to appeal+ but of director/ character to provide ti!e tables and prevent

needless dela/ in read/in a dul/ perfected appeal for consideration and decision )such as the 7


33/49

In the case at bar, hoever, I believe that the !erits and e:uities invo&ed b/ petitionersCappellants in support of

their action for specific perfor!ance of their aree!ent ith respondent for the purchase of the parcel of land

described in the co!plaint for the *aree!ent price )of+4 P"


34/49

'ctin upon the appellate court;s directive to investiate the incident for the filin of appropriate cri!inal action

aainst Kuiachon and Malindo, the RiEal provincial fiscal found aprima facie case aainst Malindo )the

letterCcarrier+ and chared hi! in the correspondin infor!ation for falsification of public docu!ents but

dis!issed the co!plaint aainst Kuiachon )the !ailin cler& of petitioners; counsel+ for lac& of sufficient

evidence since Malindo could not identif/ Kuiachon ass the person ho induced hi! to issue falsified reistr/

receipts.

I concur ith the !ain opinion in its rulin upholdin the appellate court;s factual findins, hich I don;t consider

to be revieable b/ this (ourt, rounded as the/ are on substantial evidence. Hence, for purposes of this

revie, such factual findins !ust be postulated, to it, that the printed record on appeal as sub!itted @

da/s late on 2ebruar/ "


35/49

Since the use of the false reistr/ receipts appears in no a/ to be the !a&in of petitioners the!selves,

ho as clients !a/ be presu!ed to be entirel/ unaare of the procedural re:uire!ents and of their counsel;s

action or inaction in co!pl/in thereith, the i!position of the capital of dis!issal of petitioners; appeal is

undul/ severe

Such a harsh penalt/ appears to be in deroation of the interest and purpose of the Rules of (ourt the

proper and ?ust deter!ination of a litiation. No substantial riht of respondent has been pre?udiced b/ the latesub!ittal of the late sub!ittal of the printed record, hereas petitioners; appeal ould be forfeited throuh no

fault or nelience on their part =hile clients are enerall/ bound b/ the actions or !ista&es of their

counsels, here no fault or rondoin has been attributed to either petitioners or their counsel. Their counsel;s

late sub!ittal of the brief and of the correspondin !otions for e-tension )b/ less than a !onth;s ti!e+ is not

ran& failure to co!pl/ ith the rule;s re:uire!ents

The specific rule )Rule @7, section 5+ does not provided for dis!issal of the appeal for failure to sub!it

theprinted record on appeal hereas section $ of the rule prohibits *alternations, o!issions or additions to the

printed record* and does provide that *a violation of this prohibition shall be a round for dis!issal of the

appeal.*

0ven Rule 5


36/49

court, contrar/ to the act;s !andate that the/ should b/ presented b/ !eans of *petition .... filed and

served in the for! re:uired for petitions for revie b/ certiorari of decisions of the (ourt of 'ppeals.* "

Strictl/ spea&in, such an error althouh abetted b/ the trial court;s act of approvin a record on appeal

that is not re:uired b/ the 'ct, could be considered fatal to the appeal. 1ut folloin para!ount

considerations of substantial ?ustice in preference to transressions of for!, as stressed in Sonora vs.

ongoy, 1*the (ourt has been liberal in the i!ple!entation of Republic 'ct 5@@< and instead of

dis!issin appeals co!in up to Fs b/ record on appeal, =e have alloed the appellants to file the

correspondin petition)for revie b/ certiorari+ provided the appeal b/ record on appeal had been dul/

perfected ithin the rele!entar/ period. 14

This is to stress that even thouh the provision of Republic 'ct 5@@< that such appeals shall be onl/ on

petitions for revie b/ petitions b/ certiorari and no loner as a !atter of riht b/ record on appeal is of a

!andator/ character, this (ourt has nevertheless adopted a liberal construction and chosen to appl/ the

principle of substantial ?ustice in favor of one hose appeal as actuall/ perfected on ti!e rather than to

sacrifice substance to for!. In the lanuae of Sonora, vis a vis the case at bar, *it is less than fair for

respondents to atte!pt to cut off )petitioners;+ riht to appeal b/ invo&in the literal !eanin of the lanuae of

the rules, disreardin their ise and practical construction alread/ laid don b/ the Supre!e (ourt.* 15

In sensu contrario, appl/in the sa!e principles of substantial ?ustice the (ourt has in !an/ cases see&in

!anda!us or reinstate!ent of disalloed appeals )althouh ti!el/ !ade+ loo&ed at the *substantive !erits* of

the proposed appeal and here *there is hardl/ an/ prospect of its bein ulti!atel/ sucessful,* denied

!anda!us, rulin as in %spiritu vs. ($! of (avite16that* this (ourt has alread/ ruled on several occasions,

since as earl/ as De la (ru; vs. Blanco, $6 Phil. 5#7 that !anda!us to co!pel approval and certification

of an appeal, even if otherise ell rounded, procedurall/ spea&in, has to be appeal itself, and ;it ould

serve no useful purpose to reinstate; the sa!e.* Lucas vs. Mariano 1as to the sa!e effect ith the

(ourt sustainin therein petitioner;s sub!ittal *that fro! the point of vie of the ti!e of the ta&in of the

appeal, petitioners, =e are sufficientl/ convinced that their clai! of title has no chance of bein sustained

even if other and further proceedins ere to be held in the court belo* and

2inall/, adherence to a liberal construction of the procedural rules in order to attain their ob?ective ofsubstantial ?ustice and of avoidin possible denials of substantial ?ustice due to procedural technicalities does

not !ean nonCenforce!ent of the Rules of (ourt hich are universall/ reconiEed to be necessar/ to the

orderl/ and speed/ dischare of ?udicial business ith the least dela/. (o!pliance ith the rules, hich are not

of !andator/ character )such as the period for perfectin appeals, failure to observe hich results in the

auto!atic penalt/ of loss of the riht to appeal+ but of director/ character to provide ti!e tables and prevent

needless dela/ in read/in a dul/ perfected appeal for consideration and decision )such as the 7


37/49

1'RR0DO, concurrin4

" 8C6@$iene (o. 8td. vs. Republic of the Phil., " S(R' 7


38/49


SUPREME COURT

Manila

S0(OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 9518 *&*r+ 1, 1989

RE#ECCA C. OUNG *((%(te3 b+ 'er '(b*&3 ANTONO GO, petitioner,

vs.

COURT O$ APPEA!S, P" CRE/T CORP., P"!. "O!/NG, NC. $RANCSCO !!AROMAN, $ONG

OOK !U, E!!EN EE $ONG *&3 T"E REGSTER O$ /EE/S O$ MAN!A, respondents.

Diego ". Untalan for petitioner.

%steban B. Bautista for respondents $ong 'oo/ Lu and %llen 'ee $ong.

9anette Borres for respondents.

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for revie on certiorarisee&in to set aside the decision of the (ourt of 'ppeals 1in ('CJ.R.

No. "


39/49

The oner Philippine Holdin, Inc. secured an order fro! the (it/ 0nineer of Manila to de!olish the buildin.

'ntonio 9oun, then a tenant of said Fnit "65, filed an action to annul the (it/ 0nineer;s de!olition Order

)(ivil (ase No. "6%%6+ entitledAntonio S. 'oung vs. *ilippine >olding, !nc.before the then (ourt of 2irst

Instance of Manila, 1ranch GGG. 's an incident in said case, the parties sub!itted a (o!pro!ise 'ree!ent

to the (ourt on Septe!ber @, "#%". Pararaph 6 of said aree!ent provides that plaintiff )'ntonio S. 9oun+

and Rebecca 9oun and all persons clai!in rihts under the! bind the!selves to voluntaril/ and peacefull/

vacate the pre!ises hich the/ ere occup/in as lessees )Fnits "65 and "65@, respectivel/+ hich are thesub?ect of the conde!nation and de!olition order and to surrender possession thereof to the defendant

Philippine Holdin, Inc. ithin si-t/ )7


40/49

(hui =an and 2elisa Tan 9u and Rebecca (. 9oun, assisted b/ her husband, appealed to the (ourt of

'ppeals hich dis!issed the sa!e on 'uust $, "#%$, for lac& of !erit.

Hence this petition, hich as brouht to this (ourt onl/ b/ Rebecca 9oun, assisted b/ her husband 'ntonio

Jo.

On October , "#%$, respondents 2on 9oo& 8u, !oved to stri&e out or dis!iss outriht the instant petition)Rollo, p. 65+. In the resolution of Nove!ber @, "#%$, the Second Division of this (ourt re:uired the petitioner to

co!!ent on said !otion )Rollo, p. 6$+, hich co!!ent as filed on Dece!ber "$, "#%$ )Rollo, p. 6%+.

Thereafter, in the resolution of 3anuar/


41/49

the (o!pro!ise 'ree!ent, she did not affi- her sinature above her printed na!e, nor on the left !arin of

each and ever/ pae thereof.

In fact, on crossCe-a!ination, she ad!itted that she as not a part/ to the case and that she did not sin the

aforesaid ?oint !otion because it as not presented to her )Rollo, p. "%+.

More than that, b/ the aforesaid actuations of the parties and petitioner;s apparent lac& of interest, the intentionis evident, not to include the latter either in the onerous, or in the beneficient provisions of said aree!ent.

Petitioner further arued that the stipulation ivin her the riht of first refusal is a stipulationpour autrui or a

stipulation in favor of a third person under 'rticle "6"" of the (ivil (ode.

The re:uisites of a stipulationpour autrui or a stipulation in favor of a third person are the folloin4

)"+ there !ust be a stipulation in favor of a third person.

)+ the stipulation !ust be a part, not the hole of the contract.

)6+ the contractin parties !ust have clearl/ and deliberatel/ conferred a favor upon a third

person, not a !ere incidental benefit or interest.

)@+ the third person !ust have co!!unicated his acceptance to the oblior before its

revocation.

)5+ neither of the contractin parties bears the leal representation or authoriEation of the third

part/. )2lorentino v. 0ncarnacion, Sr., $# S(R' "#6 A"#$$B+.

'ssu!in that petitioner is correct in clai!in that this is a stipulationpour autruiit is unrebutted that she did

not co!!unicate her acceptance hether e-pressl/ or i!pliedl/. She insists hoever, that the stipulation has

not /et been revo&ed, so that her present clai! or de!and is still ti!el/.

's correctl/ observed b/ the (ourt of 'ppeals, the above aru!ent is pointless, considerin that the sale of

sub?ect propert/ to so!e other person or entit/ constitutes in effect a revocation of the rant of the riht of first

refusal to Rebecca (. 9oun.

PR0MIS0S (ONSID0R0D, the petition is D0NI0D for lac& of !erit, and the decision of the (ourt of 'ppeals is

'22IRM0D.

SO ORD0R0D.

Melencio=>errera (*airperson8, adilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, 99., concur.

$oot&ote(

" Penned b/ (' 3ustices 8o!a S. 8o!bosCDe la 2uente )ponente+, Ricardo 3. 2rancisco and

'lfredo 8. 1enipa/o.


42/49


SUPREME COURT

Manila

2IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 4521 Noember 11, 1986

#ANK O$ AMERCA NT > SA, petitioner,

vs.

T"E "ON. $RST C! CASES /SON, NTERME/ATE APPE!!ATE COURT *&3 AR CARGO AN/

TRAE! CORPORATON, respondents.

Agcaoili & Associates for petitioner.


43/49

Marcelo . ?illanuea for respondents.

ME!ENCO"ERRERA, J.?

's the Petition and the (o!!ent sub!itted b/ private respondent 'ir (aro and Travel (orporation )'(T(+

have sufficientl/ arued the leal :uestion involved in this case, the (ourt has resolved to ive due course to

the Petition, ith private respondent;s (o!!ent bein its 'nser, and to consider this case sub!itted for

decision.

The basicrelevant facts have been stated b/ respondent 'ppellate (ourt as follos4

Shorn of nonCessentials, the facts are4 Plaintiff 'ir (aro and Travel (orporation is the oner

of 'ccount Nu!ber "#%@C/oa 1an& of 3apan )>9O='+ and Petitioner )1'N>'M0RI('+

that, fro! ti!e to ti!e, >9O=' can as& 1'N>'M0RI(' to pa/ a!ounts to a third part/ )beneficiar/+ ith

1'N>'M0RI(' afterards billin >9O=' the indicated a!ount iven to the beneficiar/. To assure itself that

an Order received fro! >9O=' reall/ co!es fro! >9O=', it is usuall/ areed that >9O=';s sinature ill be

in accordance ith a confidential code.

'ccordin to '(T( in its (o!!ent, in the earl/ part of "#%", it as To&/o Tourist (orporation in 3apan hich

applied ith >/oa 1an&, 8td. also based in To&/o, 3apan, for teleraphic transfer of the su! of FSQ6,5#5.'M0RI(', Manila.

=hen the tested tele- as received on Ma/ "'M0RI(' credited the a!ount of FSQ6,5#5.'M0RI(' refused.

On 2ebruar/ "%, "#%, '(T( filed suit for damagesaainst 1'N>'M0RI(' and Mina!i before the Trial (ourt

in Pasi for the failure of 1'N>'M0RI(' to restitute. Mina!i as declared in default. Thereafter, ?ud!ent

as rendered ith the folloin dispositive part4


44/49

IN VI0= O2 TH0 2OR0JOINJ (ONSID0R'TIONS, the (ourt upon a ?udicious and fair

assess!ent of the testi!onial and docu!entar/ evidences sub!itted b/ the parties is of the

opinion and so holds that defendant 1an& and defendant Mina!i !ust pa/ plaintiff, ?ointl/ and

severall/ the folloin.

". The su! of FSQ6,5#5.'M0RI(' could not have ver/ ell


45/49

disrearded that account nu!ber. It could also be that the !ention of '(T(;s na!e as a further identification

of Mina!i, to prevent pa/!ent to a possible another *Toshi/u&o Mina!i* ho !a/ not be connected ith

'(T(. On the other hand, it should be difficult to concede that, in the tested tele-, 'ccount No. @59O=' as&ed 1'N>C'M0RI(' to pa/ an a!ount to a beneficiar/ )either '(T( or Mina!i+, the contract as

beteen >9O=' and 1'N>C'M0RI(' and it had a stipulationpour autrui.

It should be recalled that the tested tele- oriinated fro! >9O=' at the behest of To&/o Tourist (orporation

ith ho! '(T( had business dealins. Mina!i, on the other hand, as the liaison officer of '(T( in 3apan.

's the entit/ responsible for the tested tele- as To&/o Tourist (orporation, it can reasonabl/ be concluded

that if it had intended that the FSQ6,5#5.9O=' and

loded a protest. Since that as not done, it could ell be that To&/o Tourist (orporation had reall/ intended its

re!ittance to be credited to Mina!i. The identit/ of the beneficiar/ should be in accordance ith the

identification !ade b/ >9O=', and '(T( cannot :uestion that identification as it is not a part/ to the

arrane!ent beteen >9O=' and 1'N>'M0RI(' )see Manila Railroad (o. vs. (o!paia Trasatlantica, 6%Phil. %$5 A"#"%B+.

=H0R02OR0, the Decision of Respondent (ourt, in its case '(CJ.R. (V No.


46/49

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

S0(OND DIVISION

G.R. No. !50911 A@(t 21, 198

MGUE! PERE7 RU#O, petitioner,vs.COURT O$ APPEA!S, RO#ERTO O. P"!!PS > SONS, NC., MAG/A!ENA SMAE! P"!!PS,MANU$ACTURERS #ANK > TRUST CO., NC., "ACEN/A #ENTO, NC., ET A!., respondents.

Daniel M. Malabonga for petitioner.

Argel=:uevarra & Associates for respondent >acienda Benito, !nc.

Meer, Meer & Meer La+ "ffice for respondent ?ictoria ?alley.

Magtanggol (. :unigundo for respondents Robert ". *illips & Sons, !nc., Magdalena 'smael *illips and>eirs of Robert *illips.

Ambrosia adilla, Mempin & Reyes La+ "ffice for respondent Manufacturers Ban/ & rust (o !nc.

GUTERRE7, R., .?

1efore us for reconsideration are the various !otions for reconsideration of the March ", "#%7 decision, thedispositive portion of hich reads4

=H0R02OR0, the petition is JR'NT0D. The decision of the for!er (ourt of 'ppeals ishereb/ R0V0RS0D and S0T 'SID0. The respondents Phillips and Sons and the Phillipsspouses are declared to be ?ointl/ and severall/ liable to the petitioner for the outstandin debtof Phillips and Sons in the a!ount of 2OFR MI88ION T=O HFNDR0D 2I2T9 THOFS'NDP0SOS )P@,5


47/49

The thrust of the aree!ent is that respondent VVD( ill ac:uire under conditions stated therein "6@."77%hectares of land includin account receivables belonin to respondent H1I Moreover, it as specificall/provided in the aree!ent that * ... H1 arrants that the properties to be ac:uired b/ VVD( are not sub?ect toan/ other obliations, liens, encu!brances, chares or clai!s of hatever nature than those !entioned herein,includin real estate ta-es up to the first se!ester of "#75.* )Me!orandu! 'ree!ent, supra, pp. 6C@+.

Included in this "6@."77% hectares are the $% hectares !ortaed to M1T(. These parcels of land ere!ortaed to M1T( to secure obliation and liabilities incurred b/ H1I and other affiliate co!panies oned b/the Phillips. Of the P$,@"#,"6


48/49

0ver/ person ho, contrar/ to la, ilfull/ or nelientl/ causes da!ae to another shallinde!nif/ the latter for the sa!e.

Parentheticall/, these respondents did not observe honest/ and ood faith in dealin ith the rihtful clai! ofthe petitioner to the still unpaid P@,5


49/49

HFNDR0D THOFS'ND P0SOS )P"

Documents

Oblicon-Cases.2ndWave (2)