Government of the Philippines v.

Frank
GR 2935
23 March 1909 Johnson, J.

SUMMARY

RESP George Frank entered into a contract with the Government of the Philippines in Chicago, Illinois, but
later stopped complying with its terms, claiming when he was held liable under it that he was a minor under
Philippine law and thus exempt from liability. The Court disagreed, ruling that as to matters of execution,
interpretation, and validity of a contract, the law of the place where the contract was made is to be followed.

FACTS

▪ Defendant-appellant George Frank entered into a two-year contract with the plaintiff-appellee Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands for his employment as a stenographer for the latter.
o He was to receive a salary of $1,200 per year, with the Government paying for his travel expenses to
the Philippines and paying him one-half salary for the duration of his travel.
o The contract was executed in Chicago, Illinois.
o The contract contained a proviso that Laws No. 80 and No. 224 constituted a part of the same.
▪ 9 months after his arrival in the Philippines and the start of his contract, Frank left the service and refused to
make further compliance with his contractual obligations.
▪ This prompted the Government to commence an action before the CFI of Manila for the recovery of
defendant’s travel expenses and the half-salary given to him for the period consumed by his travel.
▪ CFI ruled in favor of the Government, and held Frank liable for the claimed amounts.
▪ Frank argues:
o The Government amended Laws No. 80 and 224, which had the effect of materially altering the
contract;
o That he was a minor under Philippine law when the contract was executed. While at the time he
entered into the contract he was an adult under the laws of the State of Illinois, he was still a minor
under Philippine law (age of majority then was 23 years) and thus he could not be held liable
thereunder.
RATIO

W/N the amendments to Laws No. 80 and No. 224 materially altered the contract
No. The amendments to the laws did not amount to a material alteration of the contract.
• The mere fact of amendment did not have the effect of changing the terms of the contract in
question.
• Under Section 5 of the Act of Congress of 1902, the Government is prohibited from altering or
changing the terms of the contract.
• As such, the rights Frank acquired under the contract had not been changed in any respect by the
fact of amendment, and were thus still enforceable.

W/N Frank’s minority under Philippine Law exempted him from being liable under the contract
No. Frank had full capacity to enter into the contract at the time and place of its execution.
• Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation, and validity of a contract are determined by
the law of the place where the contract was made.
o Matters concerning its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of
performance.
o Matters concerning the bringing of remedies (ex. Admissibility of evidence, statutes of
limitations) depend on the law of the forum.
• The contract having been executed in the State of Illinois, the laws of which qualified Frank to
enter into a contract at the time, the same was binding upon him. He cannot plead infancy as a
defense at the place where the contract is being enforced.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, judgment of the lower court AFFIRMED.