Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > March 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24777 March 3, 1926 - BLOSSOM & COMPANY v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION

048 Phil 848:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 24777. March 3, 1926. ]

BLOSSOM & COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Thomas Cary Welch for Appellant.

J. Courtney Hixson for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. WHEN, HOW AND UPON WHOM CONTRACT IS VALID AND BINDING. — Where ostensibly the defendant entered into a contract with A. P. & C. Co. which did not have any legal existence either as a firm, partnership or corporation, but in truth and in fact it was a branch or subsidiary of B. & CO., which the defendant knew, and where B. & Co. entered upon the performance of the contract and purchased property from the defendant for that purpose, the purported contract which the defendant ostensibly made with A P. & C. Co., which is null and void as to A. P. & C. Co., is valid and binding as between B. & Co. and the defendant.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant P124,848.70 as damages for the breach of an alleged contract, with legal interest from November 23, 1923, and to enforce the contract made with the defendant, a copy of which is attached to the complaint and marked Exhibit A.

The answer is a general denial of all of the material allegations of the complaint.

The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P26,119.08, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from November 23, 1923, and costs. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, which was overruled, and exception taken.

The defendant appeals and assigns the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In overruling the demurrer of July 23, 1924.

"2. In finding that the last amended complaint stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"3. In overruling defendant’s motion at the opening of the trial.

"4. In finding that a contract existed between plaintiff and defendant.

"5. In awarding damages to plaintiff.

"6. In assessing the damages at P26,119.08.

"7. In giving judgment for plaintiff."


D E C I S I O N


JOHNS, J. :


The real question involved in this case is whether or not what is known in the record as Exhibit A is a valid and binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant It purports on its face to have been made on January 30, 1919, and to be in force and effect for a period of ten years from that date, and it was a contract for the purchase of a certain amount of coal and water gas tars to be manufactured by the defendant during that period.

The defendant vigorously contends that it never made any contract with the plaintiff, and that the only contract which it did make, if any, was with the American Paint and Chemical Company, which never had any legal existence.

In an exhaustive, well written opinion, in which a careful and detailed analysis of the evidence was made, the lower court found all of the material facts in favor of the plaintiff, that the alleged contract was a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that, although the American Paint and Chemical Company was not a partnership or corporation, yet in truth and in fact, it was a nominal subdivision or a subsidiary branch of the plaintiff.

We are clearly of the opinion that the findings of the trial court are sustained by the weight of evidence.

The record is conclusive that while the contract in question was ostensibly made with the American Paint and Chemical Company, the defendant knew that the American Paint and Chemical Company did not have any legal existence, and that in truth and in fact the contract was made with the plaintiff. Conclusive evidence of that fact is found in the agreement made on March 27, 1919, between the plaintiff and the defendant in and by which the defendant sold to the plaintiff a parcel of land for the agreed price of P18,140.20, of which P1,000 was paid at the time, and the remainder to be made in subsequent payments, and which were secured by a first mortgage on the property. It is very apparent that this land was purchased by the plaintiff in connection with, and as a part of, the contract for the sale and purchase of water gas and coal tars, and to facilitate the carrying out of that contract on the part of the plaintiff.

The amount of the damages awarded by the trial court for the breach of the contract is also sustained by the evidence. That fact appears from the entries made in the corporate books of the defendant itself.

In their briefs and oral argument, opposing counsel were somewhat poetic, and in their "fine frenzy rolling," they did "glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven," and one of them was willing to give a "kingdom for a horse." But, getting back to earth, the proof is conclusive that the defendant entered into a valid contract with the plaintiff for a period of ten years, and that without cause, it broke the contract, and it is equally clear that plaintiff has sustained the damages allowed by the lower court.

It may be that, through the filing of a cross-complaint in the foreclosure suit, the plaintiff could have recovered its damages in that suit, but that is a matter for which the defendant had no legal right to complain. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, 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






March-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 24850 March 1, 1926 - MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    048 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. 24568 March 2, 1926 - SISENANDO RIVERA v. MANUEL V. MORAN

    048 Phil 836

  • G.R. No. 25007 March 2, 1926 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. ABOITIZ & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 841

  • G.R. No. 25039 March 2, 1926 - VICENTE TUAZON v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    048 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. 24777 March 3, 1926 - BLOSSOM & COMPANY v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION

    048 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. 24584 March 8, 1926 - CASIMIRO JAPCO, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 24698 March 9, 1926 - MAXIMO LUNO, ET AL. v. POLICARPO MARQUEZ

    048 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 24367 March 11, 1926 - ROSA JALANDONI v. CONCEPCION CARBALLO

    048 Phil 857

  • G.R. No. 24984 March 13, 1926 - E.S. LYONS v. C. W. ROSENSTOCK, ET AL.

    048 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. 24177 March 16, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CARBONEL, ET AL.

    048 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. 24187 March 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TAN BOMPING, ET AL.

    048 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. 23781 March 16, 1926 - FELIPE GUINTO, ET AL. v. FERNANDO LIM BONFING, ET AL.

    048 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. 24400 March 16, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRUNO SOMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. 24555 March 16, 1926 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    048 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 24797 March 16, 1926 - DOMICIANO TIZON v. EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 910

  • G.R. No. 24649 March 17, 1926 - CALIXTO SANTIAGO v. RECAREDO M.A CALVO

    048 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 24937 March 20, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIA BINGAAN

    048 Phil 925

  • G.R. Nos. 23929 & 23930 March 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAKPIL, ET AL.

    052 Phil 985

  • G.R. No. 24475 March 6, 1926 - ALFONSO DE CASTELVI v. LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    049 Phil 998

  • G.R. No. 24678 March 6, 1926 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. M. CHONG TIAOPOC, ET AL.

    049 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. 23923 March 23, 1926 - ANTONIO MA. BARRETTO v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON

    050 Phil 888

  • G.R. No. 25425 March 20, 1926 - TRANQUILINO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. HON. FERNANDO SALAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 23893 March 23, 1926 - MANUEL RIOS, ET AL. v. JACINTO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 23148 March 25, 1926 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SEYMOUR ADDISON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 24086 March 25, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENITA DOMINGO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 24589 March 25, 1926 - JOSE LEDESMA v. SALVADOR V. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 24636 March 25, 1926 - MIGUEL BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME LIMPIN, ET AL.

    049 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 24904 March 25, 1926 - ROBINSON, ET AL. v. CRUZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 24950 March 25, 1926 - VIUDA DE TAN TOCO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO

    049 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 24988 March 25, 1926 - F. M. YAP TICO & CO., LTD. v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO

    049 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 25071 March 25, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. UTO ALLI

    049 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 24978 March 27, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FERNANDO DE FERNANDO

    049 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 25044 March 27, 1926 - URQUIJO, ET AL. v. TIMOTEO UNSON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 24137 March 29, 1926 - EULOGIO BETITA v. SIMEON GANZON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 24810 March 29, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN LIMBO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 24935 March 29, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ENRIQUE RAMISCAL

    049 Phil 103

  • G.R. Nos. 24663 & 24809 March 30, 1926 - PHIL. MFG. CO., ET AL. v. CONSORCIA CABAÑGIS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 24534 March 31, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHAN WAT

    049 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 24658 March 31, 1926 - OHTA DEV’T. CO. v. STEAMSHIP POMPEY, ET AL.

    049 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 24908 March 31, 1926 - PHIL. MFG. CO. v. Hon. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 122