1 Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil.

682 (1903)

FACTS

Don Vicente Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine
the amount due him for services rendered in the Tabacalera Company, and that, in view of the
circumstances of the case, judgment be rendered in his favor for such sum.

In the complaint it was alleged that the defendant rendered the services of the plaintiff to act as interpreter
between former and the military authorities; Don Eugenio Pomar, assured him that the Tabacalera Company
always generously repaid services rendered it, and that he therefore did not trouble himself about his inability to
devote the necessary amount of time to his business, the defendant going so far as to make him flattering
promises of employment with the company, which he did not accept; that these statements were made in the
absence of witnesses and that therefore his only proof as to the same was Mr. Pomar’s word as a gentleman;

Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend,
he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner.

ISSUE Whether or not consent has been given by the other party.

HELD

Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment
of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the
plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance,
inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual
consent as to the rendition of services. This gives rise to the delegation upon the person benefited by the
services to make compensation thereof, since the bilateral obligation to render services as interpreter, on
the one hand, and on the other to pay for the services rendered is thereby incurred.

Article 1254 of the Civil Code provides that a contract exists the moment that one or more persons
consent to be bound, with respect to another or others, to deliver some thing or to render some service.
Article 1255 provides that the contracting parties may establish such covenants, terms, and conditions
as they deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals or public policy.

Whether the service was solicited or offered, the fact remains that Perez rendered to Pomar services as
interpreter. As it does not appear that he did this gratuitously, the duty is imposed upon the defendant,
having accepted the benefit of the service, to pay a just compensation therefor, by virtue of the
innominate contract of facio ut des implicitly established.

It must be also considered that there is a tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of the services
This gives rise to the obligation upon the person benefited by the services to make compensation
therefor, since the bilateral obligation to render services as interpreter, on the one hand, and on the
other to pay for the services rendered, is thereby incurred. The judgment is rendered against Don
Eugenio Pomar the payment to the plaintiff of the sum of 200 Mexican pesos, from which will be
deducted the sum of 50 pesos is made as to the costs of this instance.
3. Ferrazini v Gsell (Persons Case Digest)

 MissIdea  Uncategorized  August 8, 2014 1 Minute

Ferrazini v. Gsell, 34 Phil 693, August 10, 1916

Facts:

The issue started when defendant was alleged to wrongfully discharge the plaintiff who had been
employed by the defendant for an indefinite time, admitting that he discharged the plaintiff without
written advice, however, asserting that such discharge is lawful on account of absence and disobedience
of the plaintiff. The previous judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, hence, the defendant now seeks an
appeal. The defendant asserts that in their contract, the petitioner cannot enter into an employment
within five years after the termination of their agreement. However, it is discovered that the plaintiff has
contracted another employment, hence, violating their agreement.

Issue: Whether or not the right of the plaintiff to enter into contract can be restrained and such
agreement is against public policy?

Held and Reasoning: No. The Court ruled that it is the policy of the law that the freedom of persons to
enter into contracts shall not be lightly interfered with, as long as it does not conflict with the morals of
the times or contravenes the interest of the society. Defining public policy, is the law of persons the
public, of social and legal interest, that which is permanent and essential of the institutions, cannot be
left to his own will. The doctrine that a contract in restraint of trade is void as against public policy is
based on two principal grounds: 1.) the injury to the public by being deprived of the restricted party’s
industry; and 2.) the injury to the party himself by being precluded from pursuing his occupation,
preventing him from supporting his family and/or himself. Moreover, stressing a rule in Gibbs v. CGCB,
the court held that public welfare is first considered. Therefore, the contract between the plaintiff and
defendant is clearly one that is against public policy because it deprives the former in obtaining a
livelihood.
4