Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil 682

Facts:
The petitioner Don Vicente Perez filed before the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking
the court to determine the amount due to him for the services he rendered in the Tabacalera Company and that
the defendant Eugenio Pomar be condemned to the payment of damages amounting to $3,200, gold, together
with the costs of suit. Prior to this event, the petitioner was asked to be an English interpreter between the
defendant and the military authorities and that after that incident, the petitioner continued to render his services
to the respondent and that he obtained passes and accompanied Pomar upon his journeys to some of the towns
in Province of Laguna( e.g conferences between the respondent and the colonel commanding the local
garrison, conferences with Captain Lemen in the town of Pilar, major in command in Pagsanjan about the
shipment of goods from Manila) and that the plaintiff was assured by the respondent that in every rendered
service to the said company, there would be such payment. Thus, caused him to abandon his soap business and
suffered damages in the sum of $3,200. The defendant filed for dismissal of the complaint denying the
allegations stated by the petitioner. He also stated that Perez borrowed from time to time money amounting to
$175 for his soap business, that Perez purposes in accompanying him is to extend his business and mercantile
relations, free transportation, and that Perez had acted as interpreter of his own free will without any offer of
payment and therefore no legal relation between them existed.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is oblige to pay the continued service rendered by the petitioner.

Held:
Yes. The Court decision is that the judgement should be rendered against Don Eugenio Pomar for the
payment to the plaintiff of the sum of 200 Mexican pesos.

Ratio:
The Court ruled out that if there is a tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of the services, the
defendant is still obliged to pay such compensation to the petitioner even if there is no written contract entered
between the two parties on the basis of quasi-contract. When one party knowingly receives something for
nothing, the courts may impose a quasi contract. Under a quasi contract, neither party is originally intended to
create an agreement. Instead, an arrangement is imposed by a judge to rectify an occurrence of unjust
enrichment. On the services rendered by the petitioner in the province of Laguna, it follows that there was a
bilateral obligation on the part of both parties because the defendant accepted the benefit of the service
rendered by the petitioner and that in turn the petitioner expected him to pay his rendition of service. Provided
in Article 22 of the Civil Code, Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him. The fact that the defendant consented to accept an interpreter's services on various
occasions, rendered in his behalf and not considered as free, it is just that he should pay the reasonable
payment because it is well-known principle of law that no one should be permitted to enrich himself to the
damage of another.