You are on page 1of 2

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 114791. May 29, 1997] NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, petitioners, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HERMOGENES ONG and JANE C. ONG, respondents. FACTS: 1. Private respondents spouses Hermogenes and Jane Ong were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City. 2. The video coverage of the wedding was provided by Nancy Go and Alex Go at a contract price of P1,650.00. 3. Three times thereafter, the newlyweds tried to claim the video tape of their wedding, which they planned to show to their relatives in the United States where they were to spend their honeymoon, and thrice they failed because the tape was apparently not yet processed. 4. The parties then agreed that the tape would be ready upon private respondents return. 5. When private respondents came home from their honeymoon, however, they found out that the tape had been erased by petitioners and therefore, could no longer be delivered. 6. Furious at the loss of the tape which was supposed to be the only record of their wedding, private respondents filed on September 23, 1981 a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City. 7. 1st Decision: 1. Ordering the rescission of the agreement entered into between plaintiff Hermogenes Ong and defendant Nancy Go; 2. Declaring defendants Alex Go and Nancy Go jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs Hermogenes Ong and Jane C. Ong for the following sums: a) b) c) d) e) P450.00, the down payment made at contract time; P75,000.00, as moral damages; P20,000.00, as exemplary damages; P5,000.00, as attorneys fees; and P2,000.00, as litigation expenses;

Defendants are also ordered to pay the costs. 8. Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14, 1993, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial courts decision.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not Alex Go is jointly and severally liable with his wife, Nancy regarding the pecuniary liabilities imposed. He argues that when his wife entered into the contract with the Ong spouses, she was acting alone for her sole interest. HELD: 1. Alex Go is not jointly and severally liable with Nancy Go. Under Article 117 of Civil Code and Article 73 of Family Code, the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. In the instant case, 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 the principle that contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them.