Fisher vs.

Robb
G.R. No. 46274 November 2, 1939

A.O. FISHER, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. JOHN C. ROBB, defendant-appellant.

PONENTE : VILLA-REAL, J

TOPIC : Classification of Obligations: Moral Obligations

PRINCIPLE : A mere moral obligation or conscience duty arising wholly from ethical
motives or a mere conscientious duty unconnected with any legal obligation,
perfect or imperfect, or with the receipt of benefit by the promisor of a material
or pecuniary nature will not furnish a consideration for an executory promise

FACTS
John C. Robb, herein defendant, was told by the board of directors of the Philippine Greyhound
Club, Inc. to make a business trip to Shanghai to study the operation of a dog racing course. In
Shanghai, defendant met plaintiff A.O. Fisher who was a manager of a dog racing course.
Plaintiff Fisher upon knowing defendant’s purpose of his trip, became interested in the
Philippine Greyhound Club and asked defendant if he could be one of the
stockholders. Defendant answered in affirmative which thereupon filed a blank subscription
and sent Greyhound Club Php3,000 in payment of the first installment of his subscription.
Upon receiving a call from the said club, he paid the second installment amounting to
Php2,000. Due to manipulations of those who control the said club and during defendant’s
absence, the company was changed to “Philippine Racing Club.”
Robb, through sending a letter, assured Fisher for any loss which he might suffer in connection
with Philippine Greyhound Club in the same that he could not expect anyone to reimburse him
for his own losses which were more than that of plaintiff.

ISSUE
Whether or not a moral obligation is demandable

RULING
NO, a moral obligation will not furnish a consideration for an executory promise from the
defendant. Defendant, although morally responsible because of the failure of the enterprise, is
not a consideration under Article 1261 of the Civil Code as an essential element for the legal
existence for an onerous contract which could bind the promisor to comply with his promise.
Article 1261 states, “there is no contract unless the following requisites exists: consent of the
contracting parties; definite object; consideration.” In the present case, it does not appear that
plaintiff consented to the said form of reimbursement. The first requisite of 1261 is lacking.
With regards of the third requisite, it is now a well-established rule that a mere moral
obligation arising from wholly ethical motives not connected with any legal obligation will not
furnish a consideration from an executory promise.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and the costs to the plaintiff.