May 1922 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1922 > May 1922 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-17751 May 29, 1922 - SIULIONG & CO. v. PEDRO YLAGAN
043 Phil 393:
043 Phil 393:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-17751. May 29, 1922. ]
SIULIONG & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO YLAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Manuel A. Zarcal for Appellant.
Kincaid, Perkins & Kincaid for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. Contract, BREACH OF; TIME OF FULFILLMENT; DEMAND OR NOTICE. — When the time for the fulfillment of the obligation is fixed in the contract no further notice by the obligee to the obligor is necessary.
2. ID.; DAMAGES, AMOUNT OF. — The amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled is the difference between the contract price and the amount for which the sugar would have been sold in the market during the months of February and March, 1920, which difference, according to the evidence, is P15 per picul.
3. EVIDENCE; DISCRETION OF COURT; ADDITIONAL PROOF. — To allow a party to reserve certain evidence and to present additional proofs is a purely discretionary act, which in this case, cannot be overruled, because, as it appears from the proceedings, there was no abuse of discretion nor was any substantial right prejudiced.
2. ID.; DAMAGES, AMOUNT OF. — The amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled is the difference between the contract price and the amount for which the sugar would have been sold in the market during the months of February and March, 1920, which difference, according to the evidence, is P15 per picul.
3. EVIDENCE; DISCRETION OF COURT; ADDITIONAL PROOF. — To allow a party to reserve certain evidence and to present additional proofs is a purely discretionary act, which in this case, cannot be overruled, because, as it appears from the proceedings, there was no abuse of discretion nor was any substantial right prejudiced.
D E C I S I O N
ROMUALDEZ, J. :
The defendant entered into a contract with Siuliong & Co., assignor of the plaintiff Siuliong & Co., Inc., by which the defendant promised to deliver 1,000 piculs of muscovado sugar of the class and at the prices stipulated in the contract. Such delivery was to be made during the months of February and March, 1920.
The contract clearly fixes the time for the delivery of the sugar, and, therefore, no further demand or notice by the plaintiff on the defendant was necessary.
The plaintiff, nevertheless, made a demand on the defendant for the delivery of the sugar according to the contract, but the defendant entirely failed to do so.
The plaintiff suffered damages represented by the difference between the contract price and the amount for which the sugar would have been sold in the market during the months of February and March, 1920, which difference, according to the evidence, is P15 per picul.
To allow a party to reserve certain evidence and to present additional proofs is purely discretionary act of the court, which, in this case, cannot be overruled, because, as it appears from the proceedings, there was no abuse of discretion nor was any substantial right prejudiced.
Judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.
The contract clearly fixes the time for the delivery of the sugar, and, therefore, no further demand or notice by the plaintiff on the defendant was necessary.
The plaintiff, nevertheless, made a demand on the defendant for the delivery of the sugar according to the contract, but the defendant entirely failed to do so.
The plaintiff suffered damages represented by the difference between the contract price and the amount for which the sugar would have been sold in the market during the months of February and March, 1920, which difference, according to the evidence, is P15 per picul.
To allow a party to reserve certain evidence and to present additional proofs is purely discretionary act of the court, which, in this case, cannot be overruled, because, as it appears from the proceedings, there was no abuse of discretion nor was any substantial right prejudiced.
Judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.
