AGUSTINO B. ONG YIU vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

AND PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.
G.R. No. 40597, June 29, 1979

DOCTRINE:
Contract of adhesion- such provisions have been held to be a part of
the contract of carriage, valid and binding upon the passenger
regardless of the latter’s lack of knowledge or assent to the
regulation.

FACTS:
A petition for certiorari was filed to seek for reversal of the decision of
CA which reduced his claim for damages for breach of contract of
transportation.
The petitioner was a passenger of PAL from Mactan Airport to Butuan
Airport to attend a court hearing. But upon arrival his maleta cannot
be found, and this maleta was overcarried to manila. The next day his
maleta was carried to Butuan but some of the documents was
missing thus petitioner filed for moral damages.
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and awarded him of 80,000.00
pesos for moral damages. But the CA modified the decision awarding
him only 100.00 pesos, the CA’s decision was based on the printed
plane ticket for baggage liability limiting the liability for every plane
ticket.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent court (court of appeals) committed
erroneous decision when it lowered the damages from 80,000 pesos
to only 100 pesos as simple negligence

RULING:
No, the honorable court of appeals did not committed erroneous
decision in lowering the damages of petitioner. Applying the contract
of adhesion. The failure of petitioner to declare a higher value for his
baggage, he cannot be permitted to recover in excess 100.00 pesos.
 C&C COMMERCIAL CORPORATION vs. ANTONIO C. MENOR
G.R. No. 28360, January 27, 1983

DOCTRINE:
Administrative Order No. 66 disqualifies any person, natural or
juridical participating in public bidding with a pending case involving
non-payment of any tax.

FACTS:
This case is about the requirement of a tax clearance certificate as a
prerequisite for taking part in public biddings or contracts to sell
supplies to any government agency. Judge Cloribel issued an order
to Antonio Menor, Acting General Manager of NWSA to allow
petitioner to participate in the bidding. The herein petitioner being the
lowest bidder. Antonio Menor required petitioner to submit the tax
clearance certificate because it is mandatory requirement. However,
The Nawasa in its resolution awarded the contract to Regal Trading
corporation as the “lowest complying bidder” The herein petitioner
filed to another court to enjoin the implementation of contract.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Cloribel acted with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing his erroneous order that Nawasa should award the contract to
herein petitioner

RULING:
Yes, Judge Cloribel acted with grave abuse of discretion and without
jurisdiction. Applying the Administrative Order No. 66 which
disqualifies any person, natural or juridical with a pending case
involving non-payment of any tax to participate in public biddings.
Nawasa was justified in not awarding the contract to herein petitioner
because it was not compliant with regards to tax clearance certificate,
particularly it had a pending case in BIR to award the petitioner would
be in complete contravention of Administrative Order No. 66.

1`23eklu
 VICENTE E. TANG vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
G.R. No. 48563, May 25, 1979

DOCTRINE:
Art. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract
is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is
alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms
thereof have been fully explained to the former.

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA which
affirmed the decision of CFI Manila. This action is for the enforcement
of two insurance policies that had been issued by the defendant
company under the following circumstances. Lee See Guat applied
for Insurance Policy and declared that she was healthy thus her
application was subsequently approved. She applied again for
additional insurance making her nephew (the petitioner) a beneficiary.
5 months later from the time of her application she died of lung
cancer. Her beneficiary seek the enforcement of insurance but the
Insurer/respondent claimed that there is a violation of Insurance law
because Lee did not declare her actual health. Vicente filed a case
for claim of Insurance but was dismissed by CFI and CA because of
concealment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not CFI and CA are correct in their decision dismissing
the petition based on concealment of the insured in violation of the
Insurance Law

RULING:
The decision of CA and CFI are correct/affirmed. Art. 1332 of the
Civil Code “When one of the parties is unable to read and write, or if
the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or
fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the
terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.” This provision
is not applicable in this case because it is not the illiterate or her
beneficiary (Vicente) who alleged that there is fraud or mistake. The
respondent in this case is not seeking to enforce the contract, on the
contrary respondent is seeking to avoid the performance.
 BUENAVENTURA ANGELES, ET. AL. vs. URSULA TORRES
CALASANZ, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 42283, March 18, 1985

DOCTRINE:
Article 1234 of the Civil Code which provides that “If the obligation
has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may
recover as though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment,
less damages suffered by the obligee.”

FACTS:
The herein buyer(Buenaventura) entered a sale of contract with
Ursula for a piece of land in Cainta, Rizal. Buyer made a down
payment of 392 pesos and agreed that the buyer shall pay the
remaining amount for installment. But after the buyer paid almost 9
years, the latter was not able to pay for the month of August 1966 for
a continuous 5 months, thus compelling the seller to revoke the
contract because of breach of contract. Thus, herein buyer filed a civil
case to compel the seller to execute the final deed of sale. The herein
seller claimed that the said contract is already validly revoked.

The CFI of Rizal declared that the contract to sell as not having
been validly cancelled ordering the herein defendants to execute the
transfer the final deed of sale.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract to sell has been automatically and validly
cancelled by the defendants-appellants

RULING:

The SC declared the decision of lower court correct and therefore

upheld. Since the amount to be paid is 3,920 with 7 percent interest
and the buyer already paid the aggregate amount of 4,533 pesos for
almost 9 years. This court should only order the payment of
remaining balance and it will not uphold the cancellation of contract of
sale. With the payment 617.17 pesos to the seller, they immediately
execute the transfer of documents.