Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > March 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. 21383 March 25, 1924 - H. O’LEARY v. MACONDRAY & CO.

045 Phil 812:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 21383. March 25, 1924. ]

H. O’LEARY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Fisher, DeWitt, Perkins & Brady for Appellant.

Harigan & Welch for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


WHEN CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE. — Where his contract of employment gives him dictionary power, a contractor is not personally liable for honest mistakes or errors of judgment.

STATEMENT

It is alleged that on January 30, 1920, the plaintiff, who is a resident of Manila, and the defendant, a domestic corporation, made the following agreement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"MACONDRAY & CO.

"Manila, P. I.

"Through G. H. Hayward.

"SIRS: Appertaining to the residence to be erected for your firm in Pasay, for which I have been requested by G. H. Hayward to submit a preposition, I have the honor to state that I have examined the plains and site and would undertake the work and complete the building in accordance with the plans and instructions, and under the supervision of the said architect for the amount of the actual cost plus twelve and one-half percent (12 1/2%).

"Payments to be made monthly on statements supported by vouchers, approved and certified by the architect.

"It is understood that time is an important provision, and with due consideration therefor materials suitable for the work are to be purchased in such quantities and at such times as may appear to be to your best interest.

"Very respectfully,

(Sgd.) "H. O’LEARY

"Accepted for and on behalf of Macondray & Co.

By (Sgd.) "CARLOS YOUNG"

That plaintiff commenced the construction of the building under the supervision of the architect, and continued the work thereon until near its completion, and kept and performed all the terms and provisions of the contract by him to be kept and performed, and that pursuant to such agreement he paid our for labor and materials the sum of P20,287.03, which was the actual cost; and that the defendant is indebted to him in the further sum of P2,535.83, being 12 1/2 percent of the actual cost of such labor and materials, and for and on account of his services and superintendent of the building, and he prays judgment for P22,822.86, with the interest from the filing of the complaint and costs.

In its second amended answer, after admitting the making of the contract and the formal allegations of the complaint, the defendant denies all other material allegations, and, as a special defense, alleges that, through plaintiff’s negligence in the construction of the building and the purchase of materials, the defendant was damaged in the sum of P32,624.25, as specified in seven different counterclaims. It is then alleged that the plaintiff was indebted to the Luneta Motor Company in the sum of P702.49, and the Insular Lumber Company in the sum of P9,766.23, both of which claims are assigned to the defendant, and it prays judgment against the plaintiff for the total of all of such claims amounting to P43,092.97.

The parties entered into a stipulation as to certain exhibits, and upon such issues, the trial rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P12,201.99, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint and costs, from which the defendant appeals, contending that the court erred in allowing interest from the filing of the complaint, and in its computation and as to be duplicated item of the Tuason & Sampedro bill, in refusing to receive evidence of the rental value of the house, in failing to make special findings of fact, and in failing to find that delay caused in the completion of the house was caused by plaintiff’s negligence, in finding for the plaintiff on defendant’s second counterclaim for damages in the sum of P5,440.11 and in finding for the plaintiff on defendant’s fourth counterclaim for damages in the sum of P13,407.25, the amount of the alleged increase in the cost of labor caused by plaintiff’s negligence.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J. :


Plaintiff’s cause of action is founded upon the contract above quoted, the making of which defendant admits. By its express terms, plaintiff says that he "would undertake the work and complete the building in accordance with the plans and instructions, and under the supervision of the said architect for the amount of the actual cost plus twelve and one-half percent (12 1/2%). Payments are to be made on monthly statements accompanied by vouchers to be approved and certified by the architect. It then recites:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is understood that time is an important provision, and with due consideration therefor materials suitable for the work are to be purchased in such quantities and at such times as may appear to be to your best interest."cralaw virtua1aw library

To say the least, the contract was very loosely drawn. No date is specified in which building is to be completed, and time is not made the essence of the contract. It is true that the materials were to be purchased in such quantities and at such times as may appear to be to the defendant’s interest.

The defense is founded upon the theory that the labor was not furnished and that the materials were not purchased for its best interest. There is no claim or pretense or fraud, or that the plaintiff was dishonest. In its final analysis, defendant’s counterclaims are founded upon plaintiff’s mistakes and errors of judgment in the employment of labor and the purchase of materials.

Assuming that there were mistakes and errors of judgment only, the plaintiff would not be liable for them under the contract. The fact that the price of lumber or of labor went up or down, or was cheaper at a certain time, would not make the plaintiff liable for a breach of contract, so long as he was exercising his best judgment and acting in good faith.

It will be noted that the materials were to be purchased "in such quantities and at such times as may appear to be to your best interest." That vested in the plaintiff a discretionary power as to the time and manner for the purchase of materials, which he would not be liable for honest mistakes or errors of judgment. The same thing is true as to the employment of labor. It is true that the contract recites "that time is an important provision." But it does not say when the building is to be completed, or that time is of the essence of the contract. In other words, under the terms of the contract, the employment of labor, the purchase of materials and the completion and construction of the building were all matters which were largely left to the discretion of the plaintiff, for which he would not be liable for honest mistakes or errors of judgment.

Pending the trial the judge of the lower court made a personal inspection of the building and of the labor and materials used in its construction, and upon all of such question, we agree with the trial court.

Although this action is founded upon contract, the amount of plaintiff’s claim was vigorously disputed. In fact the defendant claimed judgment against the plaintiff for a much larger amount. Upon such a state of facts, and under recent decisions of this court, plaintiff is only entitled to interest from the date of the judgment, and defendant’s first assignment of error must sustained. It also appears that a clerical error was made in computing 12 1/2 percent on P1,772.14, and that the amount which should be deducted was P221.52 and not P22.15, as found by the trial court. Correcting this error, the amount of plaintiff’s judgment should be P 12,002.63.

The judgment of the lower court will be modified, and instead of P12,201.99, the amount of plaintiff’s judgment will be P12,002.63, which will draw interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the first day of August, 1923, the date of he judgment in the lower court. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed, with costs in favor of the appellant in this court. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, 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






March-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 21320 March 4, 1924 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. 20991 March 6, 1924 - G. A. CU UNJIENG v. ASIA BANKING CORPORATION

    045 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. 21310 March 6, 1924 - GUI JONG & CO. v. JOSE RIVERA

    045 Phil 778

  • G.R. No. 21362 March 6, 1924 - LUNG CHEA KUNG KEE & CO. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    045 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-21284 March 12, 1924 - JUAN VERCELUZ, ET AL. v. DEOGRACIAS EDAÑO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. 21418 March 17, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON DE LOYOLA

    045 Phil 799



  • G.R. No. L-21178 March 18, 1924 - EMILIANO J. VALDEZ v. LEON SIBAL 1. �

    046 Phil 930


  • G.R. No. 21164 March 18, 1924 - NATIVIDAD BATIQUIN v. FILOMENA BATIQUIN

    045 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 21495 March 18, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. INSULAR MARITIME CO.

    045 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 20475 March 19, 1924 - IN RE: TAN DIUCO

    045 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-21237 March 22, 1924 - JAMES D. BARTON v. LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO., LTD.

    046 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-21015 March 24, 1924 - MIGUELA CARRILLO v. JUSTINIANO JAOJOCO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-21140 March 25, 1924 - CRUZ, MERCHANT & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    046 Phil 961

  • G.R. No. L-21313 March 29, 1924 - ESTEBAN BARRETTO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    046 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. 21383 March 25, 1924 - H. O’LEARY v. MACONDRAY & CO.

    045 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. 21751 March 25, 1924 - MARIA AGDORO v. PHILIPPINE MINING INDUSTRIAL CO.

    045 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 21390 March 26, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO

    045 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. 21475 March 26, 1924 - VEGETABLE OIL CORPORATION v. WINCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. 21706 March 26, 1924 - JOSEFINA RUBIO VDA. DE LARENA v. HERMENEGILDO VILLANUEVA

    045 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. 21820 March 26, 1924 - MARIA EVANGELISTA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    045 Phil 848