Title: MAVEST INC. v.

SAMPAGUITA GARMENT CORPORATION

Facts of the case:

Petitioners Mavest USA and Mavest Manila Liaison Office entered into a series
of transactions with Sampaguita Garments Corporation whereby the former would
furnish from abroad raw materials to be manufactured by the latter into finished
products for shipment to foreign buyers, Sears Roebuck and JC Penney. Each
transaction was embodied in a purchase order specifying the style and description. J.C
Penney ordered 8,000 pieces of Cotton Woven Pants at $3.65 a piece or a total of
$29,200.00. Despite the shipment and receipt by JC Penney of said orders, no payment
was made prompting Respondent to send demand letters which were unheeded.
Respondent then filed a complaint for the collection of $29,200.00 with damages before
the RTC against Petitioners. The latter contends that Respondent has already been
paid by virtue of legal compensation since Respondent likewise owes a sum of money
in the form of damages and losses as a result of breaches it committed in previous
shipments to Sears Roebuck.

Issue:
Whether or not the unpaid amount due respondent has been extinguished by
reason of legal compensation.

Ruling/Decision
Candidates contend that Burns Roebuck's US$29,200.00 asserted by
respondent for pieces of clothing conveyed to J.C. Penney is compensable and has
truth be told been repaid by the harms/misfortunes they experienced in past exchanges.

The Common Code records remuneration as one of the methods of smothering

the commitments of people who, by their own doing, are lenders and account holders of
each other. At its base, pay surmises two people who are commonly obliged to one
another regarding similarly demandable and exchanged commitments over any of which
no maintenance or debate initiated and imparted in due an ideal opportunity to the
indebted person exists.

Not to be neglected on the affirmation of-obligation point is the thing that the
gatherings specified during the pre-preliminary meeting under the steady gaze of the
preliminary court, indeed:

1. That the respondent arranged from offended party a total volume of 8,000 bits of
youngsters' cotton woven jeans at US$3.65 per piece or an aggregate sum of
US$29,200.00 and which were conveyed to JC Penney Company of California,
the proctor;
2. That the absolute expense of the merchandise stays neglected, dependent upon
the guard of compensation.

Conversely, solicitors neglected to build up respondent's implied risk to them

which would have then gotten the programmed activity of lawful pay rolling. As might be
reviewed, applicants' unfaltering position is that respondent is obliged to them to the
exchanged tune of US$34,999.57, the cash worth of the harms/misfortunes they
brought about regarding the past shipments to Burns Roebuck.It can't be
overemphasized, nonetheless, that, as found by the investigative court, candidates
seemed not to have protested the quality or amount of the work done by respondent or
to the creation or conveyance plan it noticed.

Suitably composed the Court of Requests in such manner: It is possible that

applicants' acknowledgment of the merchandise conveyed doesn't block them from
therefore mentioning criticisms about the presence of stowed away deformities in the
completed and conveyed results of respondent.

Given the previous viewpoint, we decide without reluctance that what applicants
take as misfortunes and harms caused while executing with respondent can't
conceivably be sorted as respondent's compensable obligation to them.

In common cases, the weight of evidence is on the litigant if he charges, in his

reply, an agreed guard, which isn't a forswearing of a fundamental fixing in the offended
party's reason for activity, yet is one which, whenever set up, will be a decent safeguard
i.e., an "evasion" of the case, which at first sight, the offended party as of now has due
to the respondent's own affirmations in the pleadings.[11]Candidates' safeguard for this
situation is without a doubt certifiable in character.

They additionally kept up with having caused misfortunes and harms because of
respondent's activities or inaction, by and large.

It is obvious that the issue offered under solicitors' third task of mistake identifies
with the rightness of the Court of Requests' real assurance concerning whether they
brought about misfortunes/harms because of what they see as legally binding breaks
submitted by respondent in the shipment of articles of clothing to meet Singles Roebuck
work orders.

In their fourth alloted mistake, candidates present that Mavest Manila Contact
Office (MLO), being only a specialist of Mavest U.S.A, ought not be held solidarily
obligated with the head.In holding MLO solidarily obligated with Mavest U.S.A. The re-
appraising court continued on the proposal that MLO is the contact office of Mavest
U.S.A and the expansion office of both Mavest U.S.A. furthermore, MILC.Figuratively
speaking, Mavest U.S.A. seems to have established MLO as its agent and its
completely financed augmentation office in the Philippines.

Furthermore, if MLO can be so charged, there is no rhyme nor motivation behind

why it can't be declared, as did the re-appraising court, as fortitude obligated with head
office, Mavest U.S.A. WHEREFORE, the moment request is DENIED and the pounced
upon choice of the Court of Requests Insisted in all.

Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.