Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > September 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27482 September 10, 1981 - GRACE PARK ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-27482. September 10, 1981.]

GRACE PARK ENGINEERING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO, Defendant-Appellant.

Manuel O. Chan for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Quasha, Asperilla, Zafra, Tayag and Ancheta, for Defendant-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


In a contract for the sale of cassava flour and starch processing machinery and equipment entered into by plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff agreed to sell and install for a consideration of P52,000, the aforesaid machinery and equipment within a period of 70 working days from the date of signing the contract. Plaintiff guaranteed that said machinery will process at least 6 tons of cassava flour and starch per 24-hour day operation, while defendant undertook to supply at his own expenses, the building to house the machinery, laborers needed to operate the machine, food, foundation materials and water system.

Upon failure of defendant to comply with his obligation, plaintiff, with the consent of defendant, provided the necessary materials and labor for the installation of the machine which was completed after one year and three months. Thereafter, plaintiff demanded from defendant complete payment of the balance due and all the expenses incurred in the installation. When defendant refused to pay, plaintiff brought an action for rescission of contract. The lower court found that both parties violated the contract, and granted rescission thereof; held that parties should bear his/its own damages pursuant to Article 1192 of the New Civil Code, and ordered plaintiff to pay defendant P15,570 representing partial payment of the purchase price of the machine, while the latter was required to pay the former P19,628.93 which was spent to purchase the materials and supplies to install the machine with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification that defendant-appellant should not pay plaintiff-appellee interest on the amount of P19,628.93 since to hold so would be in conflict with the rule that in case parties have committed a breach of obligation and it cannot be determined who was the first infractor, the contract shall be deemed extinguished and each shall bear his/its own damages.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT BINDING UPON THE SUPREME COURT. — The rule is well settled that factual findings of the trial court, supported by substaintial evidence, are generally binding on the Supreme Court. They are entitled to great respect, the lower court having had the opportunity of weighing carefully what was testified to and did so without oversight or neglect.

2. ID.; APPEAL; WAIVER OF RIGHT TO DISPUTE FINDINGS OF FACT. — Where a party appeals directly to this Court, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any finding of fact made by the court below.

3. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACT; WHEN WARRANTY DEPENDS UPON CONDITIONS NOT FULFILLED BY DEFENDANT, EFFECT OF. — When it was stipulated that the seller’s warranty of capacity shall be attained only when properly coordinated to the necessary manual labor required for the purpose, and the court has found that the delay of the completion of the installation as well as the incapacity of the mill to produce the desired amount of flour and starch as warranted by the plaintiff under the contract are attributable to defendant’s non-compliance with his obligation to furnish food, materials and water systems, the Court cannot sustain defendant’s contention that he cannot be ordered to return the machinery and equipment and pay the transportation expenses because there could be no delivery of the same until they were installed and shown to be producing as the warranted rate.

4. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 1385 OF NEW CIVIL CODE; RESCISSION. — Art. 1385 of the New Civil Code provides; "Rescission creates the obligations to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest, consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; BREACH THEREOF BY BOTH PARTIES, EFFECT OF. — In case both parties have committed a breach of obligations and it cannot be determined who was the first infractor, the contract shall be deemed extinguished and each shall bear his/its own damage.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPELLANT NOT LIABLE FOR INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT SPENT BY WAY OF ADVANCES BY APPELLEE. — In the case at bar, both parties were found to have committed a breach of obligations and it cannot be determined who was the first infractor. Thus, although appellant is liable to pay the amount of P19,628.93 which appellee corporation had spent by way of advances with which to purchase the necessary materials and supplies, he is not liable to pay interest thereon, otherwise to hold so would be in conflict with the rule that each party must bear his/its own damage.


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


Appeal (prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 5440) by Mohamad Ali Dimaporo from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI (in its Civil Case No. 3828), the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, all premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the rescission of the Contract for the Sale of Cassava Flour and Starch Processing Machinery and Equipment, Exh. A, dated April 1, 1954, and ordering mutual restitution by the parties, defendant to return to plaintiff the cassava flour and starch processing machinery and equipment and bear the transportation expenses thereof to the port of Cotabato, plaintiff corporation to bear the freight charges thereof for its shipment to Manila, and, to pay plaintiff the total amount of P19,628.93 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint until full payment of the same, and plaintiff to return to defendant the amount of P15,750.00 representing the partial payment made to it by defendant for the purchase price of said machinery and equipment. No pronouncement as to damages and costs." 1

Defendant - appellant Dimaporo questions the validity of the questioned decision in so far as said decision 1) orders him to return the cassava flour and starch processing machinery and equipment and 2) orders him to pay plaintiff Grace Park Engineering Co. P19,628.93 with interest.

The records disclose that on April 1, 1954, Grace Park Engineering, Inc., and Mohamad Ali Dimaporo entered into a Contract for the sale of Cassava Flour and Starch Processing Machinery and Equipment (Exh. A) 2 whereby the corporation agreed to sell and install, for the consideration of P52,000.00, a cassava flour and starch processing machinery and equipment specifically described therein at Dimaporo’s place in Karomatan, Lanao Mill Site, within a period of 70 working days from the date of signing of the contract. It was agreed that P5,750.00 shall be paid upon signing of the contract; P10,000.00 shall be paid within 30 days from the date of the signing of the contract but before machinery and equipment is loaded at Manila Harbor and P36,750.00 shall be payable in 12 monthly installments as provided in the contract.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the Corporation guaranteed said machinery and equipment to process at least 6 tons of cassava flour and starch per 24-hour day operation, while Dimaporo undertook to supply at his own expenses the building wherein shall be housed the machinery and equipment, laborers needed to complement the operation of the mill, food, foundation materials, and effective water system (par. 6, Exh. A.).

In compliance with the agreement, defendant paid plaintiff the amounts of P5,750.00 and P10,000.00 as agreed upon, thus leaving a balance of P36,750.00.

It appears on record, however, that during the course of installation of said machinery and equipment, Dimaporo failed to comply with his obligations specified in par. 6 of said contract, so much so that the Corporation was forced to provide the necessary materials and labor and advance whatever expenses had been made for that purpose with previous knowledge and consent given by Dimaporo because the latter was short of funds during that time.

It took the Corporation one (1) year and three (3) months to install the said machinery and equipment, after which, it demanded from Dimaporo complete payment of the balance due and for all expenses made in advance arising from the supply of materials and labor which Dimaporo failed to provide on time. Dimaporo refused to pay on the ground that the balance of P36,750.00 never became due and demandable because of the Corporation’s failure to complete the installation of the machinery and equipment within the stipulated period and place the same in satisfactory running conditions as guaranteed by it in the contract.

Hence, on October 1, 1955 the Corporation brought an action against Dimaporo for rescission of the aforesaid contract after mutual restitution by the parties with provision for damages in its favor. Dimaporo, in his answer, likewise seeks the rescission of the contract, after mutual restitution by the parties, but with provision for the payment by the Corporation of freight charges that may be incurred due to such restitution, and with the award of damages in his favor.

After hearing on the merit, the trial court found both parties having violated the terms and conditions of the contract, defendant Dimaporo failing to comply with his obligations under par. 6 of the contract and plaintiff corporation liable for installing machinery and equipment that are basically defective and inadequate. As to who was the first infractor in point of time, it was not determined by the trial court. Rescission of the contract was granted but held that parties should bear his/its own damages, applying article 1192 of the New Civil Code which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first infractor should be equitably tempered by the courts. If it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same should be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear his own damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the judgment of the Court below, Dimaporo directly appealed to this Court imputing seven (7) assignments of errors committed by the trial court, which may be synthesized into four (4) main issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) whether he was guilty of breach of contract.

b) whether he was liable to return the machinery and equipment subject matter of the contract.

c) whether he was liable to pay appellee Corporation the amount of P19,628.93 with interest.

d) whether he was entitled to the award of damages in his favor.

Appellant Dimaporo maintained that he has not committed any breach of contract, Exh. A, particularly par. 6 thereof; that it was appellee Corporation who was guilty thereof, and points in his appellant’s brief testimonial and documentary evidence in support of the same. Upon the other hand, the trial court, in its decision, makes the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the entire evidence presented, it appears that defendant had failed to comply with his obligations under the contract, Exh. A, more particularly with the provisions of par. 6 thereof. He was unable to furnish sufficient laborers needed to complete the operations of the mill, food, foundation materials and effective water system (Exhs. G, G-1, I, I-1, J-1, K, R, CC, KK, LL, NN-1). Under Exh. MM, a daily work progress report duly certified correct by defendant, the hammer mill and flash drier were already commercially operated on December 11, 1954 (Exh. MM-3). This necessarily gives the impression that the installation of the mill has been completed in accordance with the contract and the subsequent failure of the project is due to defendant’s fault. . . . Taking into consideration defendant’s failure to comply with this obligation, plaintiff’s delay in the complete installation of the machinery and equipment seems reasonable and understandable. . ." 3

The foregoing is a conclusion of fact of the trial court. The rule is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court, supported by substantial evidence, are generally binding on the Supreme Court. They are entitled to great respect, the lower court having had the opportunity of weighing carefully what was testified to and did so without oversight or neglect. 4 Hence the rule that when a party appeals directly to this Court, he is deemed to have waived the right to dispute any finding of fact made by the court below. 5

It is next argued for appellant Dimaporo that the trial court erred in ordering the return of the machinery and equipment subject matter of the contract to appellee corporation and maintained that although a rescission of the contract is in order, he has no obligation, however, to return the machinery and equipment, much less pay the transportation expenses thereof to the port of Cotabato, since the machinery and equipment shipped by appellee corporation were never delivered to appellant. He contended that by reference to the contract, Exh. A, it is clear that the obligation of the appellee did not end with the shipment of the machinery and equipment to the mill site; it must also install the machinery and equipment in such a manner that they would produce at least 6 tons of cassava flour per 24 hours of operations so much so that until such machinery and equipment were installed and shown to be capable of producing at the warranted rate, there could be no delivery of such machinery and equipment to appellant.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

This contention is in Our opinion, not sustained by the terms of the contract or by the facts appearing in evidence. It is true that under par. 8 of the contract, Exh. A, the "SELLER warrants that it will deliver all the machinery and equipment as agreed in par. 4, guaranteed to process at least 6 tons of cassava flour or starch per 24-hour day operation." However in said paragraph it was also stipulated that "this warranty of capacity shall be attained only when properly coordinated to the necessary manual labor required for the purpose." And according to the trial court, "the delay of the completion of the installation as well as the incapacity of the mill to produce the desired amount of flour/starch as warranted by the plaintiff under the contract are attributable to defendant’s noncompliance with his obligation to furnish food, materials, and water system."cralaw virtua1aw library

Even assuming that there is some degree of plausibility in appellant’s position, still the lower court did not commit any error in ordering appellant to return the machinery and equipment to appellee corporation, for when the former, as defendant in the lower court, filed his Answer to the complaint of appellee corporation, he prayed for the rescission of the contract between him and the plaintiff and for mutual restitution by the parties. 6 To sustain appellant’s contention that he is not liable for the return of machinery and equipment would be fundamentally contradicting the very notion of rescission. The first paragraph of article 1385 of the New Civil Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, when a contract is resolved or rescinded, it is the duty of the court to require the parties to surrender that which they have severally received and to place each as far as practicable in his original situation; and when a resolution is granted, it has the effect of abrogating the contract in all parts. The party seeking resolution cannot ask "performance as to part and resolution as to remainder." 7

The last two issues are both centered on the question of who is liable for the payment of damages and interests as a result of the breach of contract. The trial court, in resolving the issues, applied Article 1192 of the New Civil Code, which as aforestated, enunciated the rule if both parties committed a breach of obligation. The trial court found the following facts: "Both parties have failed to comply with what is respectively encumbent upon them to do, and the object of the contract is consequently defeated; defendant failed to comply with his obligations under the contract, Exh. A; that further scrutiny of the evidence shows that the machinery and equipment sold and installed by plaintiff were all along, by themselves, defective and inadequate. As to who was the first infractor in point of time, under said circumstances, cannot be specifically delineated. Hence, parties should bear his/its own damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

Based on these findings, the trial court ruled, as aforestated in the dispositive portion, that appellant Dimaporo must pay appellee corporation the total amount of P19,628.93 which the latter had spent by way of advances to the former with which to purchase the necessary materials and supplies at the rate of 6% per annum; that appellee corporation must return to appellant the amount of P15,750.00 representing the partial payment made by it to appellant for the purchase price of said machinery and equipment. The trial court, however, made no pronouncement as to damages and costs.

But appellant would contend that the amount of P19,628.93 should be offset by the damages that are due to him by reason of the violations by the appellee corporation of its obligation under the contract; that appellee must be required to pay interests on the amount of P15,750.00 since this amount paid has already been used by it; and that since the first infractor was the appellee’s corporation, therefore, damages should be paid by that party to the appellant.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The findings of fact of the trial court that both appellant Dimaporo and appellee corporation have committed a breach of obligation are fully supported by the evidence on record. As We have stated, We are not in a position to disturb the same. Therefore, it correctly applied Article 1192 of the New Civil Code to the effect that in case both parties have committed a breach of obligation and it cannot be determined who was the first infractor, the contract shall be deemed extinguished and each shall bear his/its own damages. Consequently, the trial court committed no reversible error when it ordered appellee corporation to pay appellant the amount of P15,570.00 representing partial payment of the purchase price of the machinery and equipment. This is but a consequence of the decree of rescission granted by the trial court. Neither did it commit any error when it refused to grant any interest on the aforesaid amount of P15,570.00. This is also but a consequence of the enunciated rule that each party should bear his/its own damages. For the same reasons, We hold that although appellant is liable to pay the amount of P19,628.93 which appellee corporation had spent by way of advances with which to purchase the necessary materials and supplies, however, he is not liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum until full payment of the same, as held by the lower court. Otherwise, to hold so would be in conflict with the abovementioned rule that each party must bear his/its own damages.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the only modification that the sum of P19,628.93 be paid by appellant Dimaporo to appellee Grace Park Engineering, Inc., without interest, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. p. 54, Record on Appeal, p. 34, Rollo.

2. p. 8, Record on Appeal, p. 34, Rollo.

3. pp. 48-49, Record on Appeal, p. 34, Rollo.

4. Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company 27 SCRA 674; Miguel v. Court of Appeals, 29 SCRA 760. Yturralde v. Vagilidad, 28 SCRA 393; Samson Jr. v. Tarroza, 28 SCRA 792; Perez v. Araneta, 24 SCRA 43.

5. Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Mun. of Naga, Cebu, 24 SCRA 708; Pascua v. Capuyoc, 77 SCRA 78 citing Mañacop v. Cansino, 111 Phil. 106.

6. p. 31, Record on Appeal, p. 34, Rollo.

7. Po Pauco v. Siguenza and Aguilar, 49 Phil. 404; Magdalena Estate Inc. v. Louis J. Myrick, 71 Phil. 344: Verceluz v. Edaño, 46 Phil. 801.




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-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. Nos. 2367-CAR & 2373-CAR September 3, 1981 - JULIO E. QUIZ v. AMADO B. CASTAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-28266 September 4, 1981 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43861 September 4, 1981 - FILIPINO METALS CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48992 September 4, 1981 - TOWERS REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. v. FERNANDO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 56572 and 57481 September 4, 1981 - JUAN ANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56989 September 4, 1981 - RODOLFO B. SOQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 269-J September 10, 1981 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. GREGORIO A. LEGASPI

  • A.M. No. 1648-CFI September 10, 1981 - ALEJANDRO GALAN and CARMEN T. GALAN v. JUDGE DIMALANES B. BUISSAN

  • A.M. No. 2519-MJ September 10, 1981 - ESTHER MONTEMAYOR v. FRANCISCO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. L-27482 September 10, 1981 - GRACE PARK ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO

  • G.R. No. L-28135 September 10, 1981 - JOSE MATIENZO v. MARTIN SERVIDAD

  • G.R. No. L-28486 September 10, 1981 - FRANCISCO MAGNO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32515 September 10, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38016 September 10, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41161 September 10, 1981 - FEDERATION OF FREE FARMERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51997 September 10, 1981 - INOCENCIO H. GONZALES, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54886 September 10, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1938-CFI September 11, 1981 - CONCEPCION FONACIER-ABAÑO v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • A.M. No. 2271-MJ September 18, 1981 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ v. SEGUNDO M. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-36208 September 18, 1981 - AMBO ALILAYA v. MARCELA DE ESPAÑOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56532 September 21, 1981 - CUSTODIO O. PARLADE v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2234-MJ September 25, 1981 - BERNARDO O. LAMBOLOTO v. ZACARIAS Y. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-32853 September 25, 1981 - JUAN S. BARRERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-56656-60 September 25, 1981 - MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION v. MARCELO STEEL WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1648 September 26, 1981 - PABLITO IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. VIÑA

  • G.R. No. L-52413 September 26, 1981 - MELITON C. GERONIMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1646 September 30, 1981 - MARIO HERNANDEZ v. SERGIO VILLAREAL

  • A.M. No. 1733-CFI September 30, 1981 - IRENEO CABREANA, ET AL. v. CELSO AVELINO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2089 September 30, 1981 - FELBET’S TIMBER, INC., ET AL. v. GLICERIO LUMUTHANG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2374 September 30, 1981 - VIRGILIO SURIGAO v. MARINO V. CACHERO

  • G.R. No. L-27042 September 30, 1981 - JOVENCIO CONCHA, ET AL. v. JOSE C. DIVINAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27761 September 30, 1981 - BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA NG PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-33358 September 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACTAN PEÑARANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38068 September 30, 1981 - ELISA O. GAMBOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38674 September 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO REGULAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46892 September 30, 1981 - HEIRS OF AMPARO DEL ROSARIO v. AURORA O. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47011 September 30, 1981 - FEATI BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50555 September 30, 1981 - BARANGA MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT CORPORATION v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52237 September 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO V. LAGTU

  • G.R. No. L-54097 September 30, 1981 - ROMEO N. GUMBA v. JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56133 September 30, 1981 - ANTONIO ESTABAYA v. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, ET AL.