G.R. No. L-5671. August 24, 1910.

Benito delos Reyes, plaintiff-appellant.

vs.

Veronica Alojado, defendant-appellee.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Veronica Alojado borrowed P67.60 from Benito delos Reyes on or around January 2
2, 1905, to pay off a debt she owed Olympia Zaballa.It was agreed that Alojado wo
uld continue to work as a servant at delos Reyes' house for free until she could fin
d someone who could pay her the money, thereby releasing her of her commitment 
to delos Reyes but requiring her to repeat/incur the same obligation.

On March 12, 1906, Alojado failed to meet her obligation and, despite repeated de
mands, she did not repay her loan, causing delos Reyes to file a case in the Court of 
Justice of the Peace of Sta.Rosa, Laguna, on March 15, 1906, to reclaim the money 
or force her to pay it.

The plaintiff filed a Motion to Disallow the Appeals with Costs against the
defendant on May 4, 1906, arguing that it was filed out of time with the Court of
First Instance. Delos Reyes further claimed that Alojado got various minor sums
from him totaling P11.98, all of which remained unpaid, and he sought the court to
order Alojado to honor the contract and pay him the sum of P79.57, plus the cost
of the trial, until he was paid.

Alojado responded by stating that she departed because delos Reyes

refused to pay her for the services she provided and that the products she
purchased for a total of P11.970 are still in delos Reyes' custody because he
refuses to deliver them.
 Alojado was acquitted by the Court of First Instance, who calculated her
wages to be 82 less her debt. Delos Reyes must pay Alojado the difference of
P2.43, so he filed a bill of exceptions with the Supreme Court, saying that the
CFI's verdict was obviously contradictory to the weight of evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the stipulation in the contract is valid when it is contrary to

the Reparations Act and the Court of First Instance erred in ruling that the
condition is contrary to law and morality.

RULING:

No. Since  it is a positive debt demandable of the defendant by her creditor,

the defendant's obligation to pay the stated sum, as well as the sum of P11.97
handed to her in small quantities throughout the period she was in the plaintiff's
house, is undeniable. The plaintiff's argument for the loan, namely, that the
defendant was obligated to serve as a servant in his house for no pay and to remain
there as long as she had not paid her obligation, is untenable, insofar as this
condition is illegal and immoral.

Domestic services must always be compensated, and no agreement may exist

in law that states that any domestic service must be provided free of charge,
unless it is accepted that slavery may be established in this country by a contract
entered into between the interested parties. Articles 1583, 1584, and 1585 of the
Civil Code prescribe rules governing the hiring of domestic servants, as well as the
conditions of employment, the duration for which the service may be performed,
and the wages that accrue to the servant, as well as the servant's and master's
responsibilities.