BM1707

Josie Lou Ranque BSBA 401

1. LEGASPI OIL CO., INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and BERNARD OSERAOS
[G.R. No. 96505; July 1, 1993]
FACTS:
Private Respondent Bernard Oseraos acting through his authorized agents, had several
transactions with Legaspi Oil Co. for the sale of copra to the latter. In 1976, Oseraos’ agent
signed a contract for the sale of copra at P82.00/100 kg with delivery terms of 20 days. However,
the period to deliver had lapsed and respondent delivered only 46,334 kg of copra, leaving an
undelivered balance of 53,666 kg. Petitioner made repeated demands but Oseraos elected to
ignore the same. A final demand with a warning was issued that should Oseraos fail to complete
the delivery, petitioner would purchase the balance at the open market and charge the price
differential to the latter, still Oseraos failed to deliver the remaining balance. Hence, petitioner
exercised its right under the contract and purchased the undelivered balance at the open market at
the then prevailing price of P168.00/100 kg.

ISSUE: Is Oseraos liable for damages arising from fraud or bad faith in deliberately
breaching the contract of sale entered into by the parties? Explain the grounds for his
liability, if any.
Yes, oseraos has a ground to this case, as we can see the petitioner gave oseraos has a lot of
chance of todeliver the copra completely, oseraos signed a contract to delivery it completely
within 20 days butoseraos failed a multiple time, the petitioner demands a lot of times but oseraos
ignore it. It seems likeoseraos do this intentionally so I think the grounds is fraud because he
ignores the demand a lot of timesto the point that the petitioner gave a warning for the last time
2. SSS vs. MOONWALK DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION [G.R. No.
73345. April 7, 1993] FACTS:
Plaintiff SSS approved the application of Defendant Moonwalk for a loan of P30,000,000 for the
purpose of developing and constructing a housing project. Out of P30,000,000 approved loan, the
sum of P9,595,000 was released to defendant Moonwalk. A third Amendment Deed of Mortgage
was executed for the payment of the amount of P9,595,000. Moonwalk made a total payment of
P23,657,901.84 to SSS for the loan principal of P12,254,700.
After settlement of the account, SSS issued to Moonwalk the release of Mortgage for
Moonwalk’s Mortgaged properties. In a letter to Moonwalk, SSS alleged that it committed an
honest mistake in releasing defendant; that Moonwalk has still 12% penalty for failure to pay on
time the amortization which is in the penal clause of the contract.
Moonwalk’s counsel told SSS that it had completely paid its obligation to SSS and therefore
there is no recovery of any penalty.
ISSUE: Is the penalty demandable even after the extinguishment of the principal obligation?
Explain your answer.
There is no penalty for moonwalk since moonwalk is already paid on SSS that is why they don't
have apenalty in SSS, it only depends if they are not fully paid to their debt in SSS and it also due
date, that's thetime that they need to accept the penalty to pay the interest since they reached the
due date.

02 Activity 1 *Property of STI

Page 1 of 2
 BM1707

3. PICART vs. SMITH, JR. [G.R. No. L-12219;

March 15, 1918] FACTS:
On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union, Picart was riding on his pony over said bridge. Before he
had gotten half way across, Smith approached from the opposite direction in an automobile. As the
defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning of his
approach. He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two (2) more
successive blasts, as it appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not observing
the rule of the road.
Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals. However, being perturbed by the
novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the
railing on the right side of the bridge instead of going to the left. He says that the reason he did this
was that he thought he did not have sufficient time to get over to the other side. As the automobile
approached, Smith guided it toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for the machine.
In so doing, the defendant assumed that the horseman would move to the other side. Seeing that
the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet some
distance away or slowing down, continued to approach directly toward the horse without
diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of the horse
getting across to the other side, the defendant quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to
escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the
animal that it became frightened and turned its body across the bridge, got hit by the car and the
limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some violence. As a result of its
injuries, the horse died. The plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary
unconsciousness and required medical attention for several days.
From a judgment of the lower court of La Union absolving Smith from liability, Picart has
appealed.
ISSUE: Is Smith guilty of negligence? Is the lower court right in absolving Smith from liability?
Explain your answer.
He doesn't have a case of negligence since he gave picart a signal and smith are on the right
roadalso he drives very well. Picart is the one who are controlling the pony to the right side
instead onleft side to be able to escape from the cars that is why smith must not the one to
blame, but thelower court has the right to blame smith because he is the reason for the picart
accident and heunintentionally killed the pony.

02 Activity 1 *Property of STI

Page 2 of 2