Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > November 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

006 Phil 750:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 3388. November 22, 1906. ]

TATSUSABURO YEGAWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE GREEN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Haussermann, Cohn, Williams, & Van Dyke, for Appellants.

W. L. Wright, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; PART PERFORMANCE; DAMAGES. — Y. entered into a contract with G., etc., for the construction of a certain number of edifices. Under the contract G., etc., was to place upon the ground all the material necessary for said structures. Y. was to perform all the labor necessary for the construction of said edifices. G., etc., failed to comply with his part of the contract. Held, That in the absence of proof showing substantial damages growing out of the breach of the contract the plaintiff was entitled to recover only the value of the labor actually performed.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 16th day of March, 1904, the defendants herein entered into a certain contract with the Government of the United States, represented by Lieutenant Colonel M. C. Martin, constructing quartermaster of the United States Army, for the erection and construction of sixty-five frame buildings at Fort Wm. McKinley, near the city of Manila, P. I.

On the 20th day of April, 1904, the defendants herein made and entered into a certain agreement with the plaintiff wherein and whereby said plaintiff agreed to erect and construct sixteen of the said frame buildings, in accordance and in conformity with the plans and specifications for the construction thereof contained in the contract of the defendants herein and said constructing quartermaster.

By the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants herein, the plaintiff agreed to do and perform all the manual labor signed and construct said sixteen frame buildings for the sum of 1,450 pesos for each of said frame buildings.

Under the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants herein, it was duty of the defendant top furnish and place upon the ground where said frame buildings were to be construed, all the necessary material for the construction of the same.

By the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants herein it was duty of the plaintiff to complete his part of the contract within eight months from the said 20th day of April, 1904.

The defendants herein not having complied with their contract with the said constructing quartermaster, were prohibited on the 5th day of January, 1905, from continuing the erection of all the of the said sixty-five frame buildings. By reason of the prohibited from completing his contract with the defendants.

The plaintiff claims that he was unable to comply with the terms of his contract with the defendants for the reason that the defendants failed to deliver the material necessary for the construction of the said sixteen frame buildings in accordance with the terms of their contract and instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover the amount due him by reason of the breach of the contract on the part of the said defendants.

Upon this question of the noncompliance of the defendants with the terms of the contract with prevented the plaintiff from completing his contract within the time fixed, the lower court found from the evidence as a facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the plaintiff had been had been unable to comply with the terms of his contract with the defendants owing to the failure of the defendants to supply the transportation of material required under the contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

This finding of the court is fully supported by the evidence adduced during the trial and was practically admitted by the defendants. This breach on the part of the defendants is in itself sufficient to justify a recovery on the part of the plaintiff.

Much evidence was adduced during the trial to show the quantity of labor furnished by the plaintiff under the contract and the percentage of completion of the same. Upon this question the lower court made the following finding:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the evidence presented in the case, after duly considering the same and computing the percentage of the work completed on each building sand making an average thereof, I find that there was completed, at the time the plaintiff ceased work under his contract, 61 per cent of the total amount of work to be performed by him under the contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

The total amount which the plaintiff was to receive under the contract, had he fulfilled the same, was the sum of 23,200 pesos. Sixty-one pr cent of this amount is actually performed by the plaintiff. By reason of the breach of the contract on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to at least this amount. the evidence shows, however, that the plaintiff and received from the defendants the sum of 12,228 pesos. Deducting the amount to which he was entitled, we have the sum of 1,924 pesos. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for this amount and costs. The plaintiff failed to show any special damages resulting to him by reason of the breach of the contract on the part of the defendants.

The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs. After the expiration of ten days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the case be returned to the lower court for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2127 November 1, 1906 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 2146 November 1, 1906 - MANUEL TESTAGORDA FIGUERAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2970 November 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    006 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 2189 November 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA

    006 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 2791 November 5, 1906 - CATALINO NICOLAS v. MARIA JOSE

    006 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 1794 November 6, 1906 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    006 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1935 November 6, 1906 - CLARA ALFONSO BUENAVENTURA v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 2731 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    006 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2783 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO PARCON

    006 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 3294 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SERRANO

    006 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 2686 November 8, 1906 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO.

    006 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 3082 November 8, 1906 - RAMONA TARROSA v. P. A. PEARSON

    006 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    006 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2903 November 9, 1906 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 1326 November 10, 1906 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ

    006 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. 2556 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SOFIO OPINION

    006 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 2968 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO VINCO

    006 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

    006 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 3270 November 12, 1906 - LUISA RAMOS v. CARLOS VARANDA

    006 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

    006 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 3182 November 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SOLIS

    006 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 2101 November 15, 1906 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    006 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 2892 November 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX ORTEGA

    006 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-2834 November 21, 1906 - JUAN AZARRAGA v. ANDREA CORTES

    009 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 2394 November 22, 1906 - KER & CO. v. A. R. CAUDEN

    006 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 3106 November 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PAUA

    006 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 3387 November 22, 1906 - T. SUGO v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2563 November 23, 1906 - RICARDO NOLAN v. ANTONIO SALAS

    007 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-2897 November 23, 1906 - PEDRO MAGUYON v. MARCELINO AGRA

    007 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2958 November 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO TUPULAR

    007 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3025 November 23, 1906 - SI-BOCO v. YAP TENG

    007 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1906 - CLEMENTE GOCHUICO v. MANUEL OCAMPO

    007 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906 - MUNICIPALITY OF OAS v. BARTOLOME ROA

    007 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-2408 November 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, ET AL.

    007 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-2644 November 24, 1906 - DENNIS J. DOUGHERTY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-2832 November 24, 1906 - REV. JORGE BARLIN v. P. VICENTE RAMIREZ

    007 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-2842 November 24, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. LEONARDO SANTOS

    007 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

    007 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-2835 November 27, 1906 - FELICIANO ALFONSO v. RAMON LAGDAMEO

    007 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-2498 November 28, 1906 - MARCELO TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    007 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2914 November 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO GAVIRA

    007 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2638 November 30, 1906 - AGATONA TUASON v. IGNACIA USON

    007 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    007 Phil 91