Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Go vs. CA
Go vs. CA
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Go vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R.No.114791.May29,1997.
753
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
753
hadanadverseresultonthecase.
Same; Marriages; It is contrary to human nature for any new
lywed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their
wedding.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 as sertion.
Clearly, petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for having failed
to proces s the video tape. Considering that private respondents
wereabouttoleavefortheUnitedStates,theytookcaretoinform
petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon their return
two months later. Thus, the erasure of the tape after the lapse of
thirtydayswasunjustified.
Same; Damages; Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages.In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides
thatthosewhointheperformanceoftheirobligationsareguiltyof
fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner
contravenethetenorthereof,areliablefordamages.Intheinstant
case, petitioners and private respondents entered into a contract
whereby, for a fee, the former undertook to cover the latters
wedding and deliver to them a video copy of said event. For
whatever reason, petitioners failed to provide private respondents
withtheirtape.Clearly,petitionersareguiltyofcontraveningtheir
obligation to s aid private respondents and are thus liable for
damages.
Same; Same; QuasiDelicts; While generally moral damages
cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract, the sam e
may be recovered where the breach was palpably wanton, reckless,
malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive, such as when a
partys act or omission in recklessly erasing the video coverage of a
couples wedding was precisely the cause of the suffering the latter
had to undergo.Generally,moraldamagescannotberecoveredin
anactionforbreachofcontractbecausethiscaseisnotamongthose
enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. However, it is also
acceptedinthisjurisdictionthatliabilityforaquasidelictmaystill
existdespitethepresenceofcontractualrelations,thatis,theact
754
754
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Go vs. Court of Appeals
PETITIONforreviewofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Veronico R. Sardoncilloforpetitioners.
Saleto J. Eramesforprivaterespondents.
755
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
755
756
756
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Go vs. Court of Appeals
a) P450.00,thedownpaymentmadeatcontracttime;
b) P75,000.00,asmoraldamages;
c) P20,000.00,asexemplarydamages;
d) P5,000.00,asattorneysfees;and
e) P2,000.00,aslitigationexpenses;
Defendantsarealsoorderedtopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.
Dissatisfiedwiththedecision,petitionerselevatedthecase
to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14, 1993,
dismissedtheappealandaffirmedthetrialcourtsdecision.
Hence,thispetition.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in
notappreciatingtheevidencetheypresentedtoprovethat
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
thetapewasdoneinbadfaithsoastojustifytheawardof
2
damages.
Thepetitionisnotmeritorious.
Petitionersclaimthatforthevideocoverage,thecamera
manwasemployedbyPabloLimwhoalsoownedthevideo
equipmentused.Theyfurtherassertthattheymerelygeta
3
commissionforallcustomerssolicitedfortheirprincipal.
ThiscontentionisprimarilypremisedonArticle1883of
theCivilCodewhichstatesthus:
ART.1883.Ifanagentactsinhisownname,theprincipalhasno
right of action against the persons with whom the agent has
contracted;neitherhavesuchpersonsagainsttheprincipal.
In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the
personwithwhomhehascontracted,asifthetransactionwerehis
own, except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.
xxxxxxxxx.
_______________
2Rollo,pp.1523.
3Ibid.,p.7.
757
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
757
willfullysuppressedwouldbeadverseifproduced.
5Rollo,p.19.
758
758
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Go vs. Court of Appeals
Inthisregard,Article1170oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat
thosewhointheperformanceoftheirobligationsareguilty
offraud,negligenceordelay,andthosewhoinanymanner
contravenethetenorthereof,areliablefordamages.
In the instant case, petitioners and private respondents
entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the former
undertooktocoverthelattersweddinganddelivertothem
avideocopyofsaidevent.Forwhateverreason,petitioners
failed to provide private respondents w ith their tape.
Clearly, petitioners are guilty of contravening their
obligationtosaidprivaterespondentsandarethusliablefor
damages.
The grant of actual or compensatory damages in the
amount of P450.00 is justified, as reimbursement of the
6
downpaymentpaidbyprivaterespondentstopetitioners.
Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an
actionforbreachofcontractbecausethiscaseisnotamong
those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
However,itisalsoacceptedinthisjurisdictionthatliability
for a quasidelict may still exist despite the presence of
contractual relations, that is, the act which
violates the
7
contract may also constitute a quasidelict. Consequently,
moral damages are recoverable for the breach of contract
which was palpably wanton,
reckless, malicious or in bad
8
faith,oppressiveorabusive.
Petitioners act or omission in recklessly erasing the
video coverage of private respondents wedding was
preciselythecauseofthesufferingprivaterespondentshad
toundergo.
Astheappellatecourtaptlyobserved:
Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that
the event therein recordeda wedding which in our culture is a
significantmilestonetobecherishedandrememberedcouldno
_______________
6Article2200,CivilCodeofthePhilippines.
7 PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines, V, 1990, pp. 995996; Singson v.
BankofthePhilippineIslands,23SCRA1117(1968).
8TOLENTINO,COMMENTARIES&JURISPRUDENCEONTHECIVIL
CODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,V,1995,p.656.
/
759
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
759
Consideringtheattendantwantonnegligencecommittedby
petitioners in the case at bar, the award
of exemplary
10
damages by the trial court is justified to serve as a
warning to all entities engaged in the same business to
observeduediligenceintheconductoftheiraffairs.
Theawardofattorneysfeesandlitigationexpensesare
11
likewise proper, consistent with Article 2208 of the Civil
Code.
Finally, petitioner Alex Go questions the finding of the
trialandappellatecourtsholdinghimjointlyandseverally
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
12
aloneforhersoleinterest.
Wefindmeritinthiscontention.UnderArticle117ofthe
CivilCode(nowArticle73oftheFamilyCode),thewifemay
exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business
withouttheconsentofthehusband.Intheinstantcase,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
theprinci
______________
9Rollo,p.37.
10Article2232,CivilCodeofthePhilippines.
11
760
760
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Soriano
plethatcontractsproduceeffectonlyasbetweentheparties
13
whoexecutethem.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September
14,1993isherebyAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATION
that petitioner Alex G o is absolved from any liability to
privaterespondentsandthatpetitionerNancyGoissolely
liable to said private respondents for the judgment award.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and Torres,
Jr., JJ.,concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.Secret marriage is a legally nonexistent
phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage
G.R.No.114901.May29,1997.
761
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
761
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Bangui,IlocosNorte,Br.19.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor Generalforplaintiffappellee.
Public Attorneys Officeforaccusedappellant.
762
762
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Soriano
BELLOSILLO,J.:
LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias Loreto Soriano y
Saguciowasfoundbythecourta quotohaverapedHilda
Acio. The evidence confirms his culpability; hence, we
affirm.
On 22 March 1991 Hilda Acio and Lesley Oania, a
neighborandfriend,attendedthefoundationanniversaryof
theirschool.Ataroundeightthirtyintheeveningtheyleft
the festivities and proceeded to the house of Hildas
grandmother Mercedes de la Cruz in Bgy. Lanao, Bangui,
Ilocos Norte, to pass the night there. When they arrived
Mercedes and Hildas tw in sisters w ere already asleep in
thesala.Hildahadtouseherownkeytoenterthehouse.
HildaandLesleythensleptwiththem.
At around onethirty the following morning, Hilda was
awakenedwhenshefeltsomebodyslegsontopofhers.She
immediatelyswitchedonthelight.ShesawLitoSorianoy
SagucioaliasLoretoSorianoySaguciosittingbyherside
with a long bolo on hand. He was reeking of liquor. Then
LesleyOania,thetwinsandthe70yearoldMercedesalso
woke up. Mercedes asked Lito why he was inside their
house. He answered that he was just seeking refuge as he
had killed somebody. He warned them not to disclose his
presenceinthehouseorhewouldkillallofthem.
LitosatonthesofaandorderedHildatositathisside.
Gripped with fear, she obeyed; she had no recourse. Lito
placedhisboloontopofherthighsandstartedkissingher
on the lips and cheeks, at the same time mashing her
breasts.Shepushedhishandsaway.Thisannoyedhim.He
stood up and poised to strike Mercedes on the neck. He
returnedtothesofaandcontinuedkissingHilda,mashing
her breasts and touching her thighs. She parried him off.
Thisallthemoreangeredhim.Hestoodupandsmothered
Mercedesfacewithapillow.HecommandedHildatoopen
the main door and said that he would only leave the
premisesifshewouldkisshim.
Hildarefused;surprisingly,hedidnotinsist.Instead,he
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
763
764
764
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Soriano
765
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
765
766
766
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Soriano
Now,youmentionedacertainLandoAguinaldoand
JoemerRumbaoaassweetheart(s)ofHildaAcio,doyou
knowwhowasthefirstamong(sic)thesetwo(2)persons
(tobe)thesweetheartofHildaAcio?
xxxx
A. OrlandoAguinaldo,sir.
Q. Aresidentofthatplace?
A. Yessir,weareneighbors.
Q. Doyouknowwhytheybroketherelationship?
A. BecauseOrlandodiedduringtheNPAandPNP
encounterinDumalneg,sir.
Q. Doyouknowhowlongtherelationshipwenton?
xxxx
A. Idonotknowhowmanyyearstheywerestayingwith
eachother,sir.
Q. Butverylong?
A. Perhapsaboutthreeyears,sir.
Q. Andimmediatelyafterthatrelationship(you)became
sweethearts?
A. Yes,sir.
Q. AtwhatmomentdidJoemerRumbaoabecomethe
sweetheartofHildaAcio?
A. OnMarch17,1991,sirxxxx
AssumingthatOrlandoLandoAguinaldowasHildasfirst
boyfriendandthattherelationshiplastedforaboutthree
______________
7TSN,17February1993,pp.7677.
767
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
767
AtwhatmomentdidJoemerRumbaoabecome
thesweetheartofHildaAcio?
Lito
OnMarch17,1991,sir,whenIwenttobuy
Soriano: cigarettesatthestoreofHildaAcio,Iheard
somebodymoaning,andwhenIpeepedthrough
theholeonthewall,IsawHildaandaman
inside.ThemanwasontopofHilda.Atthemom
entIhadnotyetrecognizedJoemerRumbaoa.
AfterawhileIknockedonthesmallwindowof
thestoreandHildaAcioaskedwhoisthat;I
simplyanswered,itisme,thenHildaopenedthe
smallwindowandIlookedinsideandIsaw
JoemerRumbaoawhowasputtingonhispants
andlefttheplaceinahurry.
Atty.
Reyes:
xxxx
WillyoudescribeHildaandJoemeratthefirst
timeyousawthematthestoreonMarch17,
1991?
Lito
Bothofthemwerenaked,sir.Joemerwasontop
Soriano: ofHildaAcio,andtheywerekissingeachother.
Q.
HowwereyouabletorecognizeJoemerRumbaoa
andHildaAciointhatcondition?
A.
WhenHildaAcioopenedthewindowIpeeped
throughit,Isawthemandthereis(sic)alsoa
smallbulbwhichwaslightedneartheimageof
VirginMarysir.
Q.
Wherewas(sic)HildaandJoemerlyingwhenyou
sawthem?
A.
Onafoldingbed,sir.
Q.
Whatwasyourreactionwhenyousawthem?
xxxx
Lito
OfcourseIfeltbadaboutit,andIdidnotexpect
Soriano: Hildatodothat,sir.
768
768
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Soriano
Atty.
WereyouabletotalktoHildaimmediatelyafter
Reyes: yousawtheminthatsituation?
A.
Ididnottalktoheraftershehandedthecigarettes
Iwentalready,sir.
Q.
WereyouabletotalktoJoemerRumbaoa?
A.
No,sir,wetalkedthefollowingday.
Q.
Wheredidyoutalk?
A.
Onthestreetwhenwechanceduponeachother,
sir.
Q.
Whatdidyouconverseabout?
A.
Wetalkedaboutwhathappenedtothem.Itold
JoemerRumbaoatomarryHildaAciootherwiseI
wouldreporttothefatherofHilda,butJoemer
declinedbecausehesaidhefoundoutthatHilda
wasnolongeravirginwoman,sir.
xxxx
Q.
Afterthatincident,didyouhaveachancetotalkto
HildaAcio?
A.
OnMarch22,1991,sir.
Q.
WheredidyoutalkwithHildaAcio?
A.
WhenIwenttotakemeriendaatthestoreatabout
4:00oclockintheafternoon,sir.
Q.
Didshecallforyouatthestore?
A.
Shetoldme,Wouldyoumindtocomeatthehouse
8
ofmygrandmother?
Theabovenarrationcannotinspirebelief.Forifindeedthe
accused caught his girlfriend in flagrante with another
man,hewouldnothavereactedasmildlyashedid.Again,
appellant lost no effort in describing Hilda as a woman of
loose morals. But this serves no useful purpose at all. For
thecharacterofarapevictimwillnotdisproverape.There
is absolutely no nexus between the reputation of a rape
victimandtheodiousdeedcommittedagainsther.
But if there be any doubt still on the culpability of
appellant,hislettertoHildaandherparents(Exhs.Cand
C1) should dispel that doubt and clinch the case for the
prosecution.Intheletter,appellantrepeatedly admitted the
wrong he committed against Hilda and begged for her
forgiveness and
_______________
8 Id.,pp.7780.
769
VOL.272,MAY29,1997
769
770
770
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Paterno vs. Court of Appeals
SorianoySagucioGUILTYofRAPEandsentencinghimto
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessorypenaltiesprovidedbylaw,topayHildaAciomoral
damagesintheamountofP50,000.00andtopaythecosts,
isAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Vitug, KapunanandHermosisima, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Padilla (Chairman), J.,Onleave.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.Clothesofthevictimarenotessentialandneed
notbepresentedastheyarenotindispensableevidenceto
proverape.(People vs. Budol,143SCRA241[1986])
It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some
time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapists
threats on their lives. (People vs. Errojo, 229 SCRA 50
[1994])
o0o