Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > November 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1791 November 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENO v. LA COMPAÑIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN

005 Phil 210:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1791. November 7, 1905. ]

EMILIO BUENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LA COMPANIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Del-Pan, Ortigas & Fisher, for Appellant.

C.W. Ney, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACT, ACTION FOR BREACH; PROOF. — An action for damages resulting from the breach of a contract, will not lie in the absence of proof showing in what respect the contract has been violated.

2. ID.; ACTION FOR DAMAGES; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. — An action for damages, resulting from negligence, can not be maintained in the absence of proof as to the acts or omissions constituting such negligence.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


This is an action brought by the plaintiff for salary alleged to be due him from the defendant company under a contract of hiring. The net amount sued for is $327.25, plus $5,000 claimed as damages.

On December 23, 1902, plaintiff was employed to work in the Batan mines. The defendant company denied the allegations of the complaint and set up the following counterclaim: For 225 Spanish pesetas remitted by draft to plaintiff’s family in Spain at the latter’s request; $124 for groceries drawn by plaintiff from the company’s supply store in Batan; $49.80 for a transportation ticket furnished the plaintiff from Manila to Batan and return; $10 in cash delivered to plaintiff prior to his departure for Batan; and $2,000 for damages incurred by the company on account of plaintiff’s misconduct and his violation of the terms of the contract.

The complaint alleges that "the defendant company has not delivered to plaintiff more than 124 pesos’ worth of groceries and 225 Spanish pesetas, representing three months’ salary at the rate of 75 pesetas per month, which the company remitted by draft to plaintiff’s family in Spain at the latter’s request." Plaintiff in his testimony said that prior to his departure for the Batan mine he received 22 Spanish dollars, and also 10 Spanish dollars on account of services, for which he was requested to sign the receipt marked "Exhibit A" appearing on page 67 of the bill of exceptions. So that the first, second, and fourth items of the counterclaim stand admitted by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff has filed to establish his claim for damages in the sum of 5,000 pesos or any other sum, and there is no proof that the contract referred to in the complaint has been violated.

The wages due the plaintiff under his contract of hiring do not appear to have been paid him by the defendant company. But such failure to pay on the part of the company was not due to a breach of contract on its part, but to the fact that plaintiff, being dissatisfied with an adjustment of salary due him in accordance with the terms of the contract shown him, as well as with other provisions thereof, discontinued his work, returned to Manila, and rescinded said contract.

This contract according to plaintiff’s contention must be considered as having been rescinded since March, 13, 1903, when he called at the office of the company and expressed his desire to terminate his contract, to which, so far as the record shows, the company made no objection. This contention of the plaintiff is not controverted by counsel for defendant.

The whole case rests upon the question as to what was the nature of the contract executed by the parties. Defendant claims that the contract entered into between them is the one appearing on pages 66 and 67 of the bill of exceptions, which was introduced by plaintiff without objection on the part of the defendant. Plaintiff, however, contends that this was not the contract entered into between the parties on the 22d or 23d day of December, 1902.

As to the actual terms of the contract there is no proof other than plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony with the exception of certain indirect evidence, which has but little weight and which will be considered later.

The contract referred to as having been introduced by defendant over plaintiff’s objection, contains the following stipulations: (a) That the "Compania Minas de Carbon de Batan" agreed to pay to Emilio Bueno for his services as a miner the sum of 4 pesos per day, Mexican currency, from the date of his arrival at Canalaga and until the other miners reached there from Spain; (b) that upon the arrival of said miners Bueno was to receive the same compensation as the others, provided his services continued to be satisfactory; (c) that Emilio Bueno consented to work in said mines for the aforesaid compensation from the date of his arrival at Canalaga and until the other Spanish miners arrived, from which time his wages were to be the same as those paid to the others; (d) that his travelling expenses to Canalaga were to be defrayed by the company; and (e) that plaintiff was to pay for his own maintenance.

The agreement which plaintiff claims to have been made between defendant company and himself differs from the terms of the contract above set forth, in that (1) the wages were to be at the rate of 120 Spanish dollars per month; (2) that out of said sum, 15 Spanish dollars were to be remitted by draft monthly to plaintiff’s family in Spain; (3) that the company was to pay plaintiff’s transportation expenses, including those of his return to Spain at the expiration of his contract, or sooner if required by plaintiff’s illness or through any default on the part of defendant company; (4) that the company was to furnish him with quarters, medicines, and medical attendance, and (5) that the company was to sell him, at Manila prices, such article of goods as it kept in stock at the mines.

The last contract to which reference has been made is not supported by the evidence. We thought that the other contract would throw some light upon this question in view of the fact that Geronimo Abella, the company’s secretary, testified that a copy of the same had been sent to the manager of the mines on the same boat which carried the plaintiff to Canalaga (p. 37 of the bill of exceptions), and in view of the further fact that Eduardo Hernandez de Lorenzo, manager of the company, and a witness for plaintiff, in reply to the question: "During the time that you were at the mines, did you receive a copy of what purports to be a contract between the Compania Minas de Batan and Emilio Bueno," he answered, "Yes, I received it inclosed in a letter delivered by Bueno to Mr. Pasquin during my absence" (p. 39 of the bill of exceptions). But this same witness on cross-examination testified that such was his impression because he had been so informed.

It does not appear, therefore, that the contract under which the plaintiff was to work was sent on the same boat upon which he was a passenger nor that he had from the outset, full knowledge of the terms of the contract alleged by the defendant company to have been entered into. This same witness Abella testified further that he had draws the contract for Emilio Bueno in accordance with instructions received from Jacinto Gil. When asked what these instructions were, he said that "plaintiff was to receive 4 pesos for work actually done (this differs from the provision contained in the document introduced in evidence) and travelling expenses to the mines; and to work under the terms and conditions agreed upon with the other miners who were expected to arrive from Spain (this is not so stated in the document.)"

In view of these circumstances it can not be said that the terms of the contract as alleged by either party have been satisfactorily established. With respect to the contract contended for by the defendant company, upon which this action is based, there seems to be a favorable circumstance in its support, namely, the fact that the defendant remitted monthly to plaintiff’s family in Spain 15 pesos in Spanish currency. But as has already been said, this is not a sufficient indication that the contract contended for by plaintiff was the one actually entered into between the parties.

What, in our opinion, has been conclusively proven is (1) that there was a contract of hiring between plaintiff and defendant; (2) that according to the testimony of the witness Emeterio Arteagabeitia the other four miners received 4 pesos each per day, the same as Emilio Bueno, with the exception of the Spanish miners who received 9 Spanish pesetas per day (p. 45 of the bill of exceptions); and (3) that the said contract took effect on the 23d of December, 1902, and was terminated March 13, 1903.

The counterclaim for damages can not be sustained. The testimony of the witness Arteagabeitia is very uncertain as to the sinking of one of the shafts at the mine, and the damages caused thereby. If the statement of this witness upon this point is true it would appear that the accident occurred after Bueno’s departure. The witness stated that his belief that Bueno was responsible for the accident was based upon a statement to that effect made to him by another miner.

Nor can the defendant recover the amount of the round trip ticket furnished to plaintiff as set up in the counterclaim. All that plaintiff can recover is wages due him at the rate of 4 pesos per day. There is no proof as to which of the parties violated the contract. The witness Arteagabeitia, in a letter dated March 1, 1903, reported to the company, that Bueno was coming to Manila, and recommended that he be not sent back to Batan. The contract was therefore considered in force until its cancellation on March 13, 1903. Consequently, Emilio Bueno is entitled to wages from the 23d of December, 1902, until the 13th of March, 1903, at the rate of 4 pesos, Mexican, per day, making a total of 324 pesos, from which there should be deducted the three items of the counterclaim referred to amounting to 220 pesos, Mexican currency, leaving a balance of 103.40 pesos in plaintiff’s favor.

It is therefore the judgment of this court that the defendant company pay to the plaintiff in this case the sum of 103.40 pesos, Mexican currency, or its equivalent in Philippine currency, each party to pay its own costs in both instances. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered accordingly, and the case remanded to the Court of First Instance for execution. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, 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






November-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 1207. November 2, 1905.] PIA BASA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1497. November 2, 1905.] TOMANA VERA MOGUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 2206. November 2, 1905.] MANUEL GASPAR, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. JUAN B. MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2263. November 2, 1905.] CIPRIANO SANIDAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMON CABOTAJE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2304. November 3, 1905.] EL BANCO ESPA�OL-FILIPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL., Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1078. November 7, 1905.] JOHN W. HOEY, Petitioner, vs. R.C. BALDWIN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 1791. November 7, 1905.] EMILIO BUENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2089. November 7, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ENRIQUE RIJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2297. November 7, 1905.] CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, administrator of the estate of Teodoro Patricio, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1341. November 8, 1905.] URSULA LIQUETE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EULALIO DARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1528. November 10, 1905.] JOSE ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURORA BARRIO, guardian of her minor children, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1975. November 10, 1905.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2296. November 10, 1905.] J.F. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2322. November 10, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILISO BASTAS and DIONISIO DE LA SERNA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2332. November 10, 1905.] MIGUEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1308. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PEDRO GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1642. November 11, 1905.] JUAN NOEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LASALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2008. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2184. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO PALANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2371. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2425. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff and Appellees, vs. The Chinaman UN CHE SAT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2444. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO CAGARA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1440. November 14, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, complainant-Appellee, vs. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2773. November 14, 1905.] HARRY J. COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. G.N. WOLFE, Warden of Bilibid Prison, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1898. November 15, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2121. November 15, 1905.] THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO IRIBAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1465. November 17, 1905.] ALFREDO CHANCO, administrator of the estate of Maximo Madrilejos, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1789. November 17, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2125. November 15, 1905.] PEDRO IBA�EZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2631. October 21, 1905.] EDWIN H. WARNER, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. 771 OBJECTORS, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2019. November 20, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1165. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUFINO FELIPE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1261. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PACIANO ANONUEVO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1647. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ADAUCTO OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2289. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1693. November 22, 1905.] FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. JOHN S. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 2436. November 22, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO MAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2153. November 23, 1905.] H. FRANKEL AND W.L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. M.A. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1036. November 25, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINO VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1696. November 27, 1905.] VICENTA RODRIGUEZ, administratrix of the estate of Lorenza Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LANALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 1207 November 2, 1905 - PIA BASA v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 1497 November 2, 1905 - TOMANA VERA MOGUER v. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 2206 November 2, 1905 - MANUEL GASPAR v. JUAN B. MOLINA

    005 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2263 November 2, 1905 - CIPRIANO SANIDAD v. SIMON CABOTAJE

    005 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 2304 November 3, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 1078 November 7, 1905 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R.C. BALDWIN

    005 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 1791 November 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENO v. LA COMPAÑIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN

    005 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 2089 November 7, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRIQUE RIJANO

    005 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2297 November 7, 1905 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA

    005 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 1341 November 8, 1905 - URSULA LIQUETE v. EULALIO DARIO

    005 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 1284 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 1528 November 10, 1905 - JOSE ENRIQUEZ v. AURORA BARRIO

    005 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 1975 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    005 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 2296 November 10, 1905 - J.F. WRIGHT v. LA COMPAÑIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 2322 November 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BASILISO BASTAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2332 November 10, 1905 - MIGUEL EVANGELISTA v. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 1308 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 1642 November 11, 1905 - JUAN NOEL v. MARIANO LASALA

    005 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2008 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 2184 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 2371 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 2425 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. UN CHE SAT

    005 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 2444 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO CAGARA

    005 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 1440 November 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 2773 November 14, 1905 - HARRY J. COLLINS v. G.N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1898 November 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE

    005 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2121 November 15, 1905 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ANTONIO IRIBAR

    005 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 1465 November 17, 1905 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 1789 November 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 2125 November 15, 1905 - PEDRO IBAÑEZ v. ANA ORTIZ

    005 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2019 November 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL

    005 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1165 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO FELIPE

    005 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 1261 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIANO ANONUEVO

    005 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 1647 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUCTO OCAMPO

    005 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 2289 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOE HUTCHINSON

    005 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 1693 November 22, 1905 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA v. JOHN S. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 2436 November 22, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MAZA

    005 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 2153 November 23, 1905 - H. FRANKEL, ET AL. v. M.A. CLARKE

    005 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 1036 November 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO VALENCIA

    005 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 1696 November 27, 1905 - VICENTA RODRIGUEZ v. MARIANO LANALA

    005 Phil 357