Binag, Josielyn T.

Canlubo, Alyanna

TITLE:

G.R. No 115117

INTEGRATED PACKAGING CORP., petitioner, VS. COURT OF APPEALS and FIL-ANCHOR PAPER CO., INC.,
respondents

FACTS:

Integrated Packaging Corp. and private respondent, FIL-ANCHOR PAPER CO., INC. entered into a
contract of sale on May 5, 1978. In the agreement, private respondent is bound to deliver to petitioner
3,450 reams of printing paper, coated, 2 sides basis, 80 lbs., 38”x 23”, short grain, worth, P 1,040,060
under the following schedule: May and June 1978 – 450 reams at P 290; August and September 1978 –
700 reams at P 290; January 1979 – 575 reams at P 307.20; March 1979 – 575 reams at P 307.20; July
1979 – 575 reams at P 307.20; and October 1979 – 575 reams at P 307.20. The materials were to be paid
within a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 90 days from each delivery.

As of July 30, 1979, private respondent had delivered to petitioner 1,097 reams out of the total 3,450
reams. Petitioner demanded to private respondent to immediately delivery the balance because further
delay would greatly prejudice them. From June 5, 1980 to July 23, 1981, private respondent delivered
again to petitioner various quantities of printing paper amounting to P 766,101.70. However, petitioner
encountered difficulties paying private respondent, so the private respondent made a formal demand
upon petitioner to pay his outstanding balance. On July 23 and 31, 1981 and August 27, 1981, petitioner
made payment totaling P 97,200 which was applied to deliveries dated September 29-30, 1980 and
October 1-2, 1980.

Petitioner entered into an additional printing contract with Philacor. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to
fully comply with its contract with Philacor for the printing of books VIII, IX, X, and XI. Thus, Philacor
demanded compensation from petitioner for the delay and damage it suffered on account of
petitioner’s failure.

On August 14, 1981, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City a collection
suit against petitioner for the sum of P 766,101.70, representing the unpaid balance of the petitioner.
Court of Appeals decided to award the private respondent P 763,101.70 which the petitioner is required
to pay. Expectedly, petitioner filed this instant petition contending that the appellate court’s judgment is
based on erroneous conclusions of facts and law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner is not entitled to damages
against private respondent.
RULING:

The Court of Appeals did not erred in its conclusions because it is identified that the private
respondent’s suspension of its deliveries to petitioner is due to delay of payment of the petitioner. It is
justified based on Article 1583, which provides that:

When there is a contract of sale of goods to be delivered by stated installments, which are to be
separately paid for, and the seller makes defective deliveries in respect of one or more installments, or
the buyer neglects or refuses without just cause to take delivery of or pay for one or more installments, it
depends in each case on the terms of the contract and the circumtances of the case, whether the breach
of contract is so material as to justify the injured party in refusing to proceed further and suing for
damages for breach of the entire contract, or whether the breach is severable, giving rise to a claim for
compensation but not to a right to treat the whole contract as broken.

Therefore, petitioner must pay private respondent an amount of P 763,101.70.

TITLE:

G.R. No. L-12973

VICENTE BARENG, petitioner VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PATROCINIO ALEGRIA and
AGUSTIN RUIZ, respondents

FACTS:

On November 29, 1951, Bareng purchased from Alegria the cinematographic equipment installed at the
Pioneer(now Rosamil) Theather in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, for the sum of P 15,000, P 10,000 of which was
paid, and for the balance, Bareng signed four promissory notes falling due on the following dates: P
1,000 on December 15, 1951; P 1,500 on February 15, 1952; P 1,500 on March 15, 1952; and P 1,000 on
April 1952.

The balance due on December 15, 1951 was paid but on February 12, 1952, Ruiz informed petitioner
that he was a co-owner of that said purchase and sent a telegram instructing him to suspend payments
to Alegria of the outstanding balance because Ruiz did not agree on that sale. Alegria still want to collect
the second note but Ruiz refused to pay. Bareng, on the other hand, paid only P 400 and refused to pay
balances to Alegria dispute with Ruiz has been settled. Ruiz filed suit against Bareng and Alegria for his
share in the price of the cinema equipment. Alegria then filed a suit against Bareng to pay his remaining
balance of the price of the said equipment.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Vicente Bareng is bound to pay the remaining balance to Alegria.

RULING:

Vicente Bareng is bound to pay the remaining balance to Alegria because according to Article 1590, it
says:

Should the vendee he disturbed in the possession or ownership of the thing acquired, or should he have
reasonable grounds to fear such disturbance, by a vindicatory action or a foreclosure of mortgage, he
may suspend the payment of the price until the vendor has caused the disturbance or danger to cease,
unless the latter gives security for the return of the price in a proper case of it has been stipulated that,
notwithstanding any such contingency, the vendee shall be bound to make the payment. A mere act of
trespass shall not authorize the suspension of the payment of the price.

In this case, Ruiz, a co-owner, who did not agree on purchasing the equipment acts like he trespasses
the contract. This does not mean that payment of the price should be suspended. Therefore, Bareng
should pay Alegria his remaining balance plus interest.