Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > January 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18639 January 31, 1963 - JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, ET AL. v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18639. January 31, 1963.]

"JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY" and CONCEPCION D. JAVIER, in her own behalf and as guardian ad litem of the minors CLARO D. JAVIER and RENE D. JAVIER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Navarro & Layosa, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Concepcion & Llacer, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CONTRACTS WHEREIN THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE DEBTOR HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION; PRINCIPLE IN OLD CIVIL CODE BROADENED IN NEW CIVIL CODE. — Although Article 1161 of the old Civil code has not been reenacted in the new Civil Code, its spirits is latent in other provisions of the said Code, such as its Articles 1311 and 1726, which have broadened the principle that the creditor cannot be compelled to accept the performance of the obligation or the rendition of a service by a third person whom the personal qualifications and circumstances of the debtor have been taken into consideration in the fulfillment of the obligation, making it applicable not only to obligations to do but to all kinds of obligations.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE IN CASE AT BAR. — The fact that the owner and manager of the watchman agency in the present case was not required to guard in person the premises of the company, does not negate that the guarding job was entrusted to him by reason of his personal qualifications. After his death, therefore, the company is free to engage other guards, and it can not be compelled to repose its trust and confidence in the deceased owner’s wife and heirs as to whom the contract is to be deemed not transmissible.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This case for breach of contract with damages was filed originally with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After trial, the court a quo dismissed the complaint on 14 October 1958. Plaintiffs elevated it to the Court of Appeals, but the latter remanded it to this Court, because only questions of law are involved.

The facts are simple and undisputed.

Since 1954, H. L. Swiryn had engaged at P290.00 a month the services of Federico E. Javier to guard the premises of appellee Shell-Craft & Button Corporation, of which Swiryn is the vice-president and manager. Because the services rendered by Federico E. Javier were efficient, defendant corporation renewed annually its contract with him. The last renewal, on 4 May 1956 (Exhibit 3), would have expired on 1 December 1957, as per agreement, which stipulated the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For and in consideration of the sum of P290.00 per month, the JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY with business address at 3195 Sta. Mesa Blvd., Manila, through its representative, Federico E. Javier, hereby agrees to guard the establishment of SHELL-CRAFT and BUTTON CORPORATION, located at 114 Beata, Pandacan, subject to the following conditions;

1. That in order to carry out this agreement, the JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY will furnish the necessary guards or watchmen between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. daily, seven days a week;

2. That the number of said guards or watchmen will not be less than two (2);

3. That Javier Security Special Watchman Agency shall be responsible for the payment of the salaries of said guards or watchmen and such other benefits to which they may be entitled under existing labor laws;

4. That the JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY shall furnish the SHELL-CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION every 15th and end of the month a copy of the payrolls and time records duly signed by each and every guard or watchman who might be employed by the said JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY;

5. That this Contract shall expire on December 1, 1957 renewable for another year upon mutual consent."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is pertinent to note that the "Javier Security Special Watchman Agency" is merely a service name adopted by the late Federico E. Javier to identify his business, which was owned and managed exclusively by him. The "Javier Security Special Watchman Agency" is not a corporation nor a registered partnership. Hence, it has no personality to sue or to be sued.

Before the contract expired, Federico E. Javier died suddenly on 9 May 1957. His widow, appellant Concepcion D. Javier, was then in Hongkong. To guard the compound of the corporation, Swiryn engaged the services of another agency on the same day. For this reason, the heirs of Federico E. Javier sued for breach of contract, with damages for its unexpired term from 9 May to 1 December 1957.

The only issue to be resolved is whether or not said Exhibit "C" is a personal contract, in the sense that the rights and obligations thereunder are intransmissible to the heirs of a party thereto. The trial court held the contract to be "intuitu personae", and dismissed the action; whereupon the plaintiffs appealed.

From the conditions of Exhibit "C", and according to the findings of fact of the trial court, the primordial consideration which prompted Swiryn to enter into the contract was the personality (i.e., the qualifications) of the deceased, who supervised personally the watchmen employed and controlled by him. To the corporation, it was immaterial who were the guards assigned by Federico E. Javier to watch its establishment. The lower court, in its decision above-referred to, aptly stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In the matter of security guard duty, discipline and promptness on the part of the guards is indispensable, and this was the primary reason why the defendant engaged the services of the Javier Security Special Watchman Agency, because with the personal supervision and attention the late Federico Javier had over his guards, the defendant had found their services very satisfactory, for which reason since 1954, it had retained the services of said watchman agency until the death of said Federico Javier on May 9, 1957, as testified to by Mr. H. L. Swiryn, manager of the defendant corporation. Considering that at that time Mr. Swiryn could not have expected any other person to render the same personal supervision and attention that the deceased Federico Javier had exercised over his guards during his lifetime, and considering further the immediate need of guard duty in the premises of the defendant after his death, specially so when it was not until one week after his death that the widow went to see Mr. Swiryn to have plaintiffs’ guards continue guarding its premises, the defendant was justified in replacing the guards of plaintiffs’ agency." (Record on Appeal, pp. 25-26).

While the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 has not seen fit to reenact Article 1161 of the Civil Code of 1889 to the effect that —

"In obligations to do the creditor can not be compelled to accept the performance of the obligation or the rendition of a service by third person when the personal qualifications and circumstances of the debtor have been taken into consideration in the creation of the obligation."cralaw virtua1aw library

it is not to be assumed that the omission implies that the rule embodied in that article has been discarded altogether. The spirit of Article 1161 of the old Civil Code is latent in other provisions of the new Code, such as its Articles 1311 and 1726.

"ART. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent."cralaw virtua1aw library

"ART. 1726. When a piece of work has been entrusted to a person by reason of his personal qualifications, the contract is rescinded upon his death."cralaw virtua1aw library

If at all, the Civil Code of the Philippines appears to have broadened the principle, and made it applicable to all kinds of obligations, not only to obligations to do; for among the rules governing performance (payment) of obligations, Article 1236 (paragraph 1) prescribes that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary."cralaw virtua1aw library

The fact that the late Federico Javier was not required to guard in person the premises of the appellee company does not negate that the guarding job was entrusted to him by reason of his personal qualifications. It is clear that the failure to specify in the contract the conditions required of the individual guards and watchmen proves, not that they were of no concern to the company, but that the latter relied upon their proper selection and supervision by Javier himself. This trust and confidence the company can not be compelled to repose in Javier’s wife or heirs, and as to them, the contract is to be deemed not transmissible.

Because the widow could not be expected to perform the contract for custodial services celebrated by her husband, and because upon the death of Javier no one could take his place (his widow being at the time in Hongkong and his children minors), while the premises could not be left unguarded by trusted persons, the appellee was entitled to regard its contract with Javier terminated then and there. Hence it was free to engage other guards.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, 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






January-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19823 January 12, 1963 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13873 January 31, 1963 - GENERAL INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14311 January 31, 1963 - MANILA SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL v. FAUSTO GABUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14653 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: RICARDO SANTIAGO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 - CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN NEME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14801 January 31, 1963 - FILOMENA SILVA v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15151 January 31, 1963 - EDMUNDO GRACELLA v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15467 January 31, 1963 - JESUS LANCITA, ET AL. v. GONZALO MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15484 January 31, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15656 January 31, 1963 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. WELLINGTON CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15754 January 31, 1963 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15948 January 31, 1963 - PEDRO P. RIVERA v. CARLOS P. MACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-16257 January 31, 1963 - CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC. v. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

  • G.R. No. L-16396 January 31, 1963 - BASILISA JUSTIVA v. JESUS GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16417 January 31, 1963 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16435 January 31, 1963 - DIOSDADO ESPINOSA v. NICASIO A. YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16489 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BASBANIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16525 January 31, 1963 - JOSEPH REICH v. EDMUND SCHWESINGER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN v. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-16827 January 31, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. JOSE AGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. L-16884 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

  • G.R. No. L-17085 January 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17625 January 31, 1963 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17804 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17837 January 31, 1963 - ORIENTAL KAPOK INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17878 January 31, 1963 - AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18096 January 31, 1963 - MARIA ABON, ET AL. v. AMPARO E. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18129 January 31, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18178 January 31, 1963 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOILO v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-18184 January 31, 1963 - GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18240 January 31, 1963 - SOFRONIO C. QUIMSON, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18290 January 31, 1963 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. LEANDRO GRUET

  • G.R. No. L-18360 January 31, 1963 - TATALON BARRIO COUNCIL, ET AL. v. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18389 January 31, 1963 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18480 January 31, 1963 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18515 January 31, 1963 - GERONIMO E. CAPARAS v. DOMINGO C. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18518 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO TAGARO

  • G.R. No. L-18601-2 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUALHATI S. MACANDOG

  • G.R. No. L-18639 January 31, 1963 - JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, ET AL. v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-18692 January 31, 1963 - MANUEL B. RUIZ v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18704 January 31, 1963 - OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18742 January 31, 1963 - OFELIA DE GREARTE, ET AL. v. LONDON ASSURANCE

  • G.R. No. L-18746 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDERICK G. WEBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18879 January 31, 1963 - LOPE DAMASCO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA

  • G.R. No. L-18941 January 31, 1963 - GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL. v. RITA LEGARDA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18982 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-19423 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE’S SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CRISANTO ARAGON