Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > September 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21911 September 15, 1924 - EL VARADERO DE MLA. v. INSULAR LUMBER CO.

046 Phil 176:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-21911. September 15, 1924. ]

EL VARADERO DE MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Ernesto Zaragoza for Appellant.

Ross, Lawrence & Selph and Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr., for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE; OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, WHEN ADMISSIBLE. —The general rule is that an offer of compromise is inadmissible.

2. ID.; ID. — Where, however, the amount named in the offer to accept a certain sum in settlement appears to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, it is relevant.

3. ID.; ID. — The rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations does not apply where there is no denial expressed or implied of liability, and the only questions discussed relate to the amount to be paid.

4. CONTRACTS; INSTANT CASE. — Held: On the facts, that the reasonable value of the repairs performed by El Varadero de Manila on the lighter Tatlo owned by the Insular Lumber Company, was P7,700.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J. :


El Varadero de Manila completed satisfactorily certain repairs on the lighter Tatlo, the property of the Insular Lumber Company. The work was performed pursuant to no express agreement, but with the implicit understanding that the price would be as low as, or lower than, could be secured from any other company.

The Insular Lumber Company being or the opinion that the bill as presented by El Varadero de Manila was grossly exorbitant and a proposed compromise having failed of realization, the matter was taken to court, with the result that in the Court of First Instance of Manila, El Varadero de Manila, the plaintiff, secured judgment against the Insular Lumber Company, the defendant, in the amount of P5,310.70, with legal interest from the presentation of the complaint, and costs. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has appealed to this court and here has asked us to increase the amount of the judgment to P12,412.62.

To arrive at as correct a judgment as is possible, it will first be necessary to set down a number of figures and thereafter to seize upon a few salient facts as having influence.

The itemized bill presented by the plaintiff, the amount which it still claims, totals P12,412.62. At one time during the course of the negotiations, the plaintiff was willing to accept P10,241.37. (Exhibit I.) The witnesses for the plaintiff naturally took the view that the bill was correct. But the trial judge was of the opinion that it was excessive.

The defendant, on the other hand, says that a reasonable figure for the work would be P5,310.70. Witnesses were offered to substantiate this contention. Their testimony so impressed the trial judge that he adopted their statements as his own. During the course of the abortive negotiations, however, the defendant expressed a willingness to play the plaintiff P8,070.12. (Exhibit G.)

Now to emphasize three points which will materially assist us in rendering judgment. The first point relates to the offer of compromise which naturally, under the general rules of evidence, must be excluded, except that as the amounts named in the offers to accept certain sums in settlement appear to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of the value, they are relevant. (City of Springfield v. Schmook [1878], 68 Mo., 394; Daniels v. Town of Woonsocket [1874], 11 R. I., 4; Teasley v. Bradley [1900], 110 Ga., 497.) Here, there was no denial of liability and the only question discussed was the amount to be paid which the plaintiff insisted should not be less than P10,241.37, and which the defendant insisted should not be more than P8,070.12. The second point of interest relates to the testimony of Mariano Yengko, inspector of vessels, admittedly a disinterested witness, who in one synopsis of a fair value of the repairs, arrived at P5,134.20, but which, on cross examination. he raised to between seven and eight thousand pesos. And the third point is that the tacit understanding between the parties was that the cost of the repairs should be approximately the same as what other companies would charge. The defendant admits that El Varadero de Navotas would have done the work for about P8,000.

Basing our findings, therefore, on the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that the reasonable value of the repairs performed by El Varadero de Manila on the Tatlo owned by the Insular Lumber Company, was something less than P8,000. We fix the sum definitely at P7,700.

Judgment is modified, and in lieu of the judgment rendered in the lower court, another shall issue in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the recovery of P7,700, with legal interest to begin to run from the date when this judgment shall become final and to continue until payment, without express finding as to costs in either instance. So ordered.

Street, Avanceña, Villamor, 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






September-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22015 September 1, 1924 - MARSHALL-WELLS CO. v. HENRY W. ELSER & CO., INC.

    046 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L- 21414 September 3, 1924 - RAMON ZARAGOZA v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    046 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 22126 September 6, 1924 - VENANCIO CORTES v. GREGORIA FLORES

    047 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. 22424 September 8, 1924 - RUFINO MANALO v. CAYETANO LUKBAN, ET AL.

    048 Phil 973

  • G.R. No. L-22132 September 9, 1924 - ANSELMA LAPUZ v. CFI OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-22740 September 10, 1924 - CIRILO ACEJAS v. ANDRES C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    046 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-21924 September 11, 1924 - SING JUCO v. BENJAMIN CUAYCONG, ET AL.

    046 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-22041 September 11, 1924 - JOSE ALEJANDRINO v. MANUEL L. QUEZON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-22106 September 11, 1924 - ASIA BANKING CORP. v. STANDARD PRODUCTS CO.

    046 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-21269 September 13, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FRANCISCO AVILA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-21587 September 13, 1924 - MATEO DISTOR v. GREGORIO DORADO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-21923 September 13, 1924 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO., LTD. v. POTENCIANO DE PIO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-22206 September 13, 1924 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-21911 September 15, 1924 - EL VARADERO DE MLA. v. INSULAR LUMBER CO.

    046 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-21943 September 15, 1924 - ASKAY v. FERNANDO A. COSALAN

    046 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 22102 September 19, 1924 - RAFAEL FLORES v. SOTERO FLORES, ET AL.

    048 Phil 982

  • G.R. No. L-21556 September 20, 1924 - AUGUSTO J. D. CORTES v. LORENZO RAMOS

    046 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 21387 September 22, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. 21206 September 22, 1924 - ANTONIO ABEJOLA v. INOCENTES DAVID, ET AL.

    049 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-22911 September 23, 1924 - RAMON BLANCO, ET AL. v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-21639 September 25, 1924 - ALBERT F. KIEL v. ESTATE OF P. S. SABERT

    046 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-21969 September 25, 1924 - MAXIMINA TAN v. GO CHIONG LEE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-22073 September 25, 1924 - AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., INC., ET AL. v. JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD

    046 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-22173 September 25, 1924 - JULIANA ABRAGAN, ET AL. v. RITA G. DE CENTENERA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-20732 September 26, 1924 - C. W. ROSENSTOCK v. EDWIN BURKE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-22082 September 26, 1924 - LEOPOLDO DE BELEN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-21487 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MAMERTO A. VALDELLON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. L-21718 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SOTERO BERMEJO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-21922 September 27, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RUSTICO PADILLA

    046 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-22080 September 27, 1927

    EL DORADO OIL WORKS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    046 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-22557 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ZACARIAS RAGAZA

    046 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-21671 September 29, 1924 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. MUN. OF TABACO

    046 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-21995 September 29, 1924 - ISIDRO S. VILLARUEL v. ALBINA ALVAYDA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-21805 September 30, 1924 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANDRES ABSOLO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-21859 September 30, 1924 - CIRIACO FULE v. ANASTASIO FULE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-22063 September 30, 1924 - LUCIO FRANCISCO v. CRISPULO ONRUBIA

    046 Phil 327