You are on page 1of 2

Article 1257. Stipulation pour autrui UY TAM and UY YET (plainttiff-appellant) v. TH MAS !

E "A#$ (defendant-plaintiff) %a&e 'act& A bond was executed between Thomas Leonard as obligors and the city of Manila as obligee. The bond was executed in connection with and to secure the performance of a contract entered into by Hosty and Brown, the principals of the bond, for furnishing crushed rock to the city of Manila for one year. The contractual bond reads as follows !Know all men by these presents, that we, R. C. Hosty and W. W. Brown, of the city of Manila, Province of Manila, Island of !"on, Philippine Islands, as principals, and #eor$e C. %ellner, #eo. &. Brown, Walter &. 'lsen, Harold M. Pitt, and (homas eonard, all of the city of Manila, P. I., as s!reties are held and bo!nd !nto the city of Manila in the penal s!m of twenty)ei$ht tho!sand five h!ndred pesos, Philippine c!rrency, to the payment of which s!m well and tr!ly to be made, we bind o!rselves, o!r heirs, e*ec!tors, and administrators, in the amo!nt for which each has severally +!alified as shown in the several affidavits hereto attached. The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the abo"e#bounden $. %. Hosty and &. &. Brown ha"e on the '(th day of )anuary, '*'', entered into a contract with the city of Manila, represented by the president of its Municipal Board, for furnishing crushed rock for a period of one year. +y Tam and +y ,et furnished the contractors with certain materials for use in the performance of said contract, ha"ing pre"iously notified Leonard of the acceptance of the conditions of the bond relating to laborers and material#men. The city of Manila refused to any intention to fa"or materialmen and laborers. (&&ue a- &hether or not the plaintiff is conditioned payment for all labor and material, construed as a stipulation b- An appeal to sustain the defendants denial upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and dismiss the complaint with costs. $eci&ion a- The plaintiff is denied for a stipulation for labor and material b- The .udgment of the lower court, sustaining the denial to the complaint, is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. #e&olutio (nde)ti Article '(/0 of the %i"il %ode is confined to the enforcement of stipulations in fa"or of third persons. The history of the doctrine and the meaning of the word stipulation re1uire that the benefit claimed by a third person must be one intended to be conferred upon him by the parties. The article does not lend its aid to an incidental benefit which a third person may ha"e in the performance of the contract.

The intent of the contracting parties to benefit a third person must be clearly expressed. A clause in a contractors bond reading solely to a municipality and conditioned to pay for all labor and material cannot be construed as a stipulation pour autrui a"ailable to materialmen. The absence of apt words describing the materialmen as obligees on the bond negati"es a clear intent of the parties to stipulate in their fa"or. 2uch a construction of the bond is also in disregard of article '3(0 of the %i"il %ode, which re1uires a contract of surety to be express and prohibits its extension to ob.ects not specified. The facts that all signatories to the bond .oin in denying any intention to fa"or materialmen and laborers by the insertion of such a clause is also an ob.ection to such a construction of the instrument.