SECOND
DIVISION
NANCY
GO and ALEX GO,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 114791
May 29, 1997
-versus-
HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS,
HERMOGENES ONG and JANE C. ONG,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
No less than
the Constitution commands Us to
protect marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation
of the family.[1]
In our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be
underestimated
as it is the matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth
reliving
in the succeeding years. It is in this light that We narrate the
following
undisputed facts:
Private
respondents, Spouses Hermogenes and Jane
Ong, were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City. The video
coverage
of the wedding was provided by petitioners at a contract price of
P1,650.00.
Three times thereafter, the newlyweds tried to claim the video tape of
their wedding which they planned to show to their relatives in the
United
States where they were to spend their honeymoon, and thrice they failed
because the tape was apparently not yet processed. The parties then
agreed
that the tape would be ready upon private respondents' return.cralaw:red
When private
respondents came home from their
honeymoon, however, they found out that the tape had been erased by
petitioners
and, therefore, could no longer be delivered. Furious at the loss
of the tape which was supposed to be the only record of their wedding,
private respondents filed on September 23, 1981, a complaint for
specific
performance and damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial
Court,
7th Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City. After a protracted
trial,
the court a quo rendered a decision, to wit:
Dissatisfied
with the decision, petitioners elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14, 1993,
dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.
Hence, this
petition.cralaw:red
Petitioners
contend that the Court of Appeals
erred in not appreciating the evidence they presented to prove that
they
acted only as agents of a certain Pablo Lim and, as such, should not
have
been held liable. In addition, they aver that there is no evidence to
show
that the erasure of the tape was done in bad faith so as to justify the
award of damages.[2]
The petition is
not meritorious.cralaw:red
Petitioners claim
that for the video coverage,
the cameraman was employed by Pablo Lim who also owned the video
equipment
used. They further assert that they merely get a commission for all
customers
solicited for their principal.[3] This contention is
primarily
premised on Article 1883 of the Civil Code which states thus:
Art. 1883. If an agent acts in his own
name,
the principal has no right of action against the persons with whom the
agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the principal.
In such case the agent is the one
directly
bound
in favor of the person with whom he has contracted, as if the
transaction
were his own, except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioners'
argument that since the video equipment
used belonged to Lim and thus the contract was actually entered into
between
private respondents and Lim is not deserving of any serious
consideration.
In the instant case, the contract entered into is one of service, that
is, for the video coverage of the wedding. Consequently, it can hardly
be said that the object of the contract was the video equipment used.
The
use by petitioners of the video equipment of another person is of no
consequence.
It must also be
noted that in the course of the
protracted trial below, petitioners did not even present Lim to
corroborate
their contention that they were mere agents of the latter. It would not
be unwarranted to assume that their failure to present such a vital
witness
would have had an adverse result on the case.[4]
As regards the
award of damages, petitioners would
impress upon this Court their lack of malice or fraudulent intent in
the
erasure of the tape. They insist that since private respondents did not
claim the tape after the lapse of thirty days, as agreed upon in their
contract, the erasure was done in consonance with consistent business
practice
to minimize losses.[5]
We are not
persuaded.cralaw:red
As correctly
observed by the Court of Appeals,
it is contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to neglect to
claim
the video coverage of their wedding; the fact that private respondents
filed a case against petitioners belies such assertion. Clearly,
petitioners
are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the video
tape.
Considering that private respondents were about to leave for the United
States, they took care to inform petitioners that they would just claim
the tape upon their return two months later. Thus, the erasure of the
tape
after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified.cralaw:red
In this regard,
Article 1170 of the Civil Code
provides that "those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty
of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who is any manner contravene
the
tenor thereof, are liable for damages."
In the instant
case, petitioners and private respondents
entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the former undertook to
cover
the latter's wedding and deliver to them a video copy of said event.
For
whatever reason, petitioners failed to provide private respondents with
their tape. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of contravening their
obligation
to said private respondents and are thus liable for damages.cralaw:red
The grant of
actual or compensatory damages in
the amount of P450.00 is justified, as reimbursement of the downpayment
paid by private respondents to petitioners.[6]
Generally, moral
damages cannot be recovered in
an action for breach of contract because this case is not among those
enumerated
in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. However, it is also accepted in this
jurisdiction that liability for a quasi-delict may still exist despite
the presence of contractual relations, that is, the act which violates
the contract may also constitute a quasi-delict.[7]
Consequently, moral damages are recoverable for the breach of contract
which was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith,
oppressive
or abusive.[8]
Petitioners' act
or omission in recklessly erasing
the video coverage of private respondents' wedding was precisely the
cause
of the suffering private respondents had to undergo. As the appellate
court
aptly observed:
Considering the sentimental value of the
tapes
and the fact that the event therein recorded a wedding which in
our
culture is a significant milestone to be cherished and remembered
could no longer be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was
correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in the amount of
P75,000.00, which was a great reduction from plaintiffs' demand in the
complaint in compensation for the mental anguish, tortured feelings,
sleepless
nights and humiliation that the appellees suffered and which, under the
circumstances, could be awarded as allowed under Articles 2217 and 2218
of the Civil Code.[9]
Considering the
attendant wanton negligence committed
by petitioners in the case at bar, the award of exemplary damages by
the
trial court is justified[10]
to serve as a warning to all entities engaged in the same business to
observe
due diligence in the conduct of their affairs.
The award of
attorney' s fees and litigation expenses
are likewise proper, consistent with Article 2208[11]
of the Civil Code.cralaw:red
Finally,
petitioner Alex Go questions the finding
of the trial and appellate courts holding him jointly and severally
liable
with his wife Nancy regarding the pecuniary liabilities imposed. He
argues
that when his wife entered into the contract with private respondent,
she
was acting alone for her sole interest.[12]
We find merit in
this contention. Under Article
117 of the Civil Code [now Article 73 of the Family Code], the wife may
exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business without the
consent
of the husband. In the instant case, We are convinced that it was only
petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with private
respondent.
Consequently, We rule that she is solely liable to private respondents
for the damages awarded below, pursuant to the principle that contracts
produce effect only as between the parties who execute them.[13]
WHEREFORE, the
assailed decision dated September
14, 1993 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner Alex
Go is absolved from any liability to private respondents and that
petitioner
Nancy Go is solely liable to said private respondents for the judgment
award. Costs against petitioners.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno,
Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
______________________________
Endnotes
[1]Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 15-23.
[3]
Ibid., p. 7.
[4]Section 3[e], Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states, "that evidence
willfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced,".
[5]
Rollo, p. 19.
[6]
Article 2200, Civil Code of the Philippines.
[7]
Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, V, 1990, pp. 995-996, Singson v.
Bank of the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117 [1968].
[8]
Tolentino, Commentaries & Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines,
V, 1995, p. 656.
[9]
Rollo, p. 37.
[10]
Article 2232, Civil Code of the Philippines.
[11]
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses
of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1] When exemplary damages are
awarded;
xxx
xxx
xxx
[12]
Rollo, p. 23.
[13]
Article 1311, Civil Code of the Philippines. |