G.R. No.

L-27010 April 30, 1969

Marlene Dauden-Hernaez, petitioner
vs.
Hon. Walfrido De Los Angeles, Judge Of The Court Of First Instance Of Quezon City,
Hollywood Far East Productions, Inc., And Ramon Valenzuela, respondents

Ponente: Acting Chief Justice Jose Benedicto Luna Reyes

FACTS:

Petitioner Marlene Dauden-Hernaez, a motion picture actress, filed a complaint against

Hollywood Far East Productions, Inc., and its President and General Manager, Ramon Valenzuela,
to recover P14,700.00 representing a balance allegedly due said petitioner for her services as
leading actress in two motion pictures produced by the company, and to recover damages.
The Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City ordered the complaint dismissed,
mainly because the "claim of plaintiff was not evidenced by any written document, either public
or private", and the complaint "was defective on its face" for violating Articles 1356 and 1358 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as for containing defective allege, petitions. In view of
the attitude of the Court of First Instance, plaintiff resorted to this Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contract was defective on its face for violating Articles 1356 and 1358
of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

RULING:

NO. The contractual system of our Civil Code still follows that of the Spanish Civil Code
of 1889 and of the "Ordenamiento de Alcala” of upholding the spirit and intent of the parties over
formalities: hence, in general, contracts are valid and binding from their perfection regardless of
form whether they be oral or written. This is plain from Articles 1315 and 1356 of the present Civil
Code. The contract sued upon by petitioner herein (compensation for services) does not come
under the exceptions in Article 1356. It is true that it appears included in Article 1358, providing
that "all other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in
writing, even a private one." But Article 1358 nowhere provides that the absence of written form
in this case will make the agreement invalid or unenforceable. On the contrary, Article 1357 clearly
indicates that contracts covered by Article 1358 are binding and enforceable by action or suit
despite the absence of writing. The basic error in the lower court's decision lies in overlooking that
in our contractual system it is not enough that the law should require that the contract be in writing,
as it does in Article 1358. The law must further prescribe that without the writing the contract is
not valid or not enforceable by action.

COMMENT:

I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the Court Of First Instance erred in its
decision that the said contract for services violated of Articles 1356 and 1358 of the Civil Code.
Under Article 1356, the general rule is that it shall be obligatory, provided all of the essential
requisites for its validity are present, except when, first, the contractual form is needed for validity
as in the case of a donation of real property which needs a public instrument; second, form is
needed for enforceability under the Statute of Frauds. In this case, the contract for services of the
petitioner falls under neither exception. Also in accordance with Article 1358, the contract for
services are binding and enforceable by action or suit despite the absence of any writing.