Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > April 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. 64693 April 27, 1984 - LITA ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 64693. April 27, 1984.]

LITA ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. SECOND CIVIL CASES DIVISION, INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, NICASIO M. OCAMPO and FRANCISCA P. GARCIA, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. MERCANTILE LAW; TRANSPORTATION; CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE; USE OF SAME UNDER "KABIT SYSTEM p" CONDEMNED. — The parties herein operated under an arrangement, commonly known as the "kabit system," whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee. A certificate of public convenience is a special privilege conferred by the government. Abuse of this privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be countenanced. The "kabit system" has been identified as one of the root causes of the prevalence of graft and corruption in the government transportation offices. In the words of Chief Justice Makalintal, (Dizon v. Octavio, 51 O.G. 4059) "this is a pernicious system that cannot be too severely condemned. It constitutes an imposition upon the good faith of the government."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AGREEMENT UNDER THE SYSTEM, VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY. — Although not outrightly penalized as a criminal offense, the "kabit system" is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and, therefore, void and inexistent under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. It is a fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract, but will leave them both where it finds them. Upon this premise, it was flagrant error on the part of both the trial and appellate courts to have accorded the parties relief from their predicament. Article 1412 of the Civil Code denies them such aid.

3. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; VOID CONTRACTS, CANNOT BE CURED BY RATIFICATION OR PRESCRIPTION. — The defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable, and cannot be cured by ratification or by prescription. As this Court said in Eugenio v. Perdido, 97 Phil. 41, "the mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; PRINCIPLES OF IN PARI DELICTO, DEFINED; APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — The principle of in pari delicto is well known not only in this jurisdiction but also in the United States where common law prevails. Under American jurisdiction, the doctrine is stated thus: "The proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or damages for its violation. The rule has sometimes been laid down as though it was equally universal, that where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other." (Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 5th ed. p. 728) Although certain exceptions to the rule are provided by law, We see no cogent reason why the full force of the rule should not be applied in the instant case.


D E C I S I O N


ESCOLIN, J.:


"Ex pacto illicito non oritur actio" [No action arises out of an illicit bargain] is the time-honored maxim that must be applied to the parties in the case at bar. Having entered into an illegal contract, neither can seek relief from the courts, and each must bear the consequences of his acts.chanrobles law library : red

The factual background of this case is undisputed.

Sometime in 1966, the spouses Nicasio M. Ocampo and Francisca Garcia, herein private respondents, purchased in installment from the Delta Motor Sales Corporation five (5) Toyota Corona Standard cars to be used as taxicabs. Since they had no franchise to operate taxicabs, they contracted with petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc., through its representative, Manuel Concordia, for the use of the latter’s certificate of public convenience in consideration of an initial payment of P1,000.00 and a monthly rental of P200.00 per taxicab unit. To effectuate said agreement, the aforesaid cars were registered in the name of petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc. Possession, however, remained with the spouses Ocampo who operated and maintained the same under the name Acme Taxi, petitioner’s trade name.

About a year later, on March 18, 1967, one of said taxicabs driven by their employee, Emeterio Martin, collided with a motorcycle whose driver, one Florante Galvez, died from the head injuries sustained therefrom. A criminal case was eventually filed against the driver Emeterio Martin, while a civil case for damages was instituted by Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, heir of the victim, against Lita Enterprises, Inc., as registered owner of the taxicab. In the latter case, Civil Case No. 72067 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc. was adjudged liable for damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and P7,000.00 for attorney’s fees.

This decision having become final, a writ of execution was issued. One of the vehicles of respondent spouses with Engine No. 2R- 914472 was levied upon and sold at public auction for P2,150.00 to one Sonnie Cortez, the highest bidder. Another car with Engine No. 2R-915036 was likewise levied upon and sold at public auction for P8,000.00 to a certain Mr. Lopez.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Thereafter, in March 1973, respondent Nicasio Ocampo decided to register his taxicabs in his name. He requested the manager of petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc. to turn over the registration papers to him, but the latter allegedly refused. Hence, he and his wife filed a complaint against Lita Enterprises, Inc., Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, Visayan Surety & Insurance Co. and the Sheriff of Manila for reconveyance of motor vehicles with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 90988 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Trial on the merits ensued and on July 22, 1975, the said court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby dismissed as far as defendants Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, Visayan Surety & Insurance Company and the Sheriff of Manila are concerned.

"Defendant Lita Enterprises, Inc., is ordered to transfer the registration certificate of the three Toyota cars not levied upon with Engine Nos. 2R-230026, 2R-688740 and 2R-585884 [Exhs. A, B, C and D] by executing a deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiff.

"Plaintiff is, however, ordered to pay Lita Enterprises, Inc., the rentals in arrears for the certificate of convenience from March 1973 up to May 1973 at the rate of P200 a month per unit for the three cars." (Annex A, Record on Appeal, p. 102-103, Rollo).

Petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc. moved for reconsideration of the decision, but the same was denied by the court a quo on October 27, 1975. (p. 121, Ibid.)

On appeal by petitioner, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 59157-R, the Intermediate Appellate Court modified the decision by including as part of its dispositive portion another paragraph, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the event the condition of the three Toyota cars will no longer serve the purpose of the deed of conveyance because of their deterioration, or because they are no longer serviceable, or because they are no longer available, the Lita Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to pay the plaintiffs their fair market value as of July 22, 1975." (Annex "D", p. 167, Rollo.).

Its first and second motions for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner came to Us, praying that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. . . .

"2. . . . after legal proceedings, decision be rendered or resolution be issued, reversing, annulling or amending the decision of public respondent so that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) the additional paragraph added by the public respondent to the DECISION of the lower court (CFI) be deleted;

"(b) that private respondents be declared liable to petitioner for whatever amount the latter has paid or was declared liable (in Civil Case No. 72067) of the Court of First Instance of Manila to Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, as heir of the victim Florante Galvez, who died as a result of the gross negligence of private respondents’ driver while driving one private respondents’ taxicabs." (p. 39, Rollo.)

Unquestionably, the parties herein operated under an arrangement, commonly known as the "kabit system", whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee. A certificate of public convenience is a special privilege conferred by the government. Abuse of this privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be countenanced. The "kabit system" has been identified as one of the root causes of this prevalence of graft and corruption in the government transportation offices. In the words of Chief Justice Makalintal, 1 "this is a pernicious system that cannot be too severely condemned. It constitutes an imposition upon the good faith of the government." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Although not outrightly penalized as a criminal offense, the "kabit system" is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and, therefore, void and inexistent under Artic1e 1409 of the Civil Code. It is a fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract, but will leave them both where it finds them. Upon this premise, it was flagrant error on the part of both the trial and appellate courts to have accorded the parties relief from their predicament. Article 1412 of the Civil Code denies them such aid. It provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) when the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other’s undertaking."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable, and cannot be cured by ratification or by prescription. As this Court said in Eugenio v. Perdido, 2 "the mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

The principle of in pari delicto is well known not only in this jurisdiction but also in the United States where common law prevails. Under American jurisdiction, the doctrina is stated thus: "The proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or damages for its violation. The rule has sometimes been laid down as though it was equally universal, that where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other." 3 Although certain exceptions to the rule are provided by law, We see no cogent reason why the full force of the rule should not be applied in the instant case.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, all proceedings had in Civil Case No. 90988 entitle "Nicasio Ocampo and Francisca P. Garcia, Plaintiffs, versus Lita Enterprises, Inc., Et Al., Defendants" of the Court of First Instance of Manila and CA-G.R. No. 59157-R entitled "Nicasio Ocampo and Francisca P. Garcia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus Lita Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Appellant," of the Intermediate Appellate Court, as well as the decisions rendered therein are hereby annulled and set aside. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Dizon v. Octavio, 51 O.G. 4059.

2. 97 Phil. 41.

3. Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 5th ed., p. 728.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





April-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 1392 April 2, 1984 - PRECIOSA R. OBUSAN v. GENEROSO B. OBUSAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-32274 April 2, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33697 April 2, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANCIO L. CAUYAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-34586 & L-36625 April 2, 1984 - HOSPICIO NILO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35309 April 2, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MARBEBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62014-16 April 2, 1984 - HEIRS OF INOCENCIO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62117 April 2, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS ARLEGUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62985 April 2, 1984 - ARTURO CURSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60033 April 4, 1984 - TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., ET AL. v. CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63284 April 4, 1984 - SAULOG TRANSIT, INC. v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-29016-18 April 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. L-34541 April 5, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION U. JARENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37014 April 6, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GAYOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29986 April 17, 1984 - ERNESTO OPPEN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35157 April 17, 1984 - FRANCISCO A. PERFECTO v. FELICIANO S. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36383 April 17, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BASADRE

  • G.R. No. L-39804 April 17, 1984 - LCC CORPORATION v. JESUS FARRALES

  • G.R. No. L-47067 April 17, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OLIVER S. TAJON

  • G.R. No. 60370 April 17, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL DAMO

  • G.R. Nos. L-48736-37 April 19, 1984 - EM TRANSPORT, INC. v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37578 April 24, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46439 April 24, 1984 - ANDREA M. MOSCOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63860 April 24, 1984 - NEMIA SAGLIBA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2781 April 27, 1984 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. DANILO G. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-39087 April 27, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO Q. DE JESUS

  • G.R. Nos. L-44859-60 April 27, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO BALBUENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54081 April 27, 1984 - ADELAIDO HERRERA v. IÑAKI LARRAZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55509 April 27, 1984 - ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55900 April 27, 1984 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56877 April 27, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BAYLON

  • G.R. No. 62636 April 27, 1984 - ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64693 April 27, 1984 - LITA ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31956 April 30, 1984 - FILOMENA GERONA DE CASTRO v. JOAQUIN TENG QUEEN TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32995 April 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DEL CASTILLO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42962 April 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO EGOT

  • G.R. No. L-48153 April 30, 1984 - ESCOLASTICO BUSTARGA, ET AL. v. FELICIANO NAVO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48433 April 30, 1984 - PACITA DIMAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56968 April 30, 1984 - RODOLFO DE LEON v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57288 April 30, 1984 - LEONILA SARMIENTO v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59217 April 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILARDE ITURA

  • G.R. No. 59298 April 30, 1984 - FLORENTINA L. BACLAYON v. PACITO G. MUTIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60098 April 30, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MULA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 63191 April 30, 1984 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64279 April 30, 1984 - ANSELMO L. PESIGAN, ET AL. v. DOMINGO MEDINA ANGELES, ET AL.xx