Case Doctrines: Obligations as to rights & Obligations of multiple Parties 1. Calang & Philtranco vs.

People

We see no reason to overturn the lower courts finding on Calangs culpability. The finding of negligence on his part by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, is a question of fact that we cannot pass upon without going into factual matters touching on the finding of negligence. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts We, however, hold that the RTC and the CA both erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang. We emphasize that Calang was charged criminally before the RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a direct party in this case. Since the cause of action against Calang was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176[1] and 2180[2] of the Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict. If at all, Philtrancos liability may only be subsidiary. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments, as follows: In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulations shall have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeepers employees. The foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers, according to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. 2. Ronquillo vs. CA

This is a case of solidary liability. Ronquillo was one of four debtors for the sum of P117, 498.98 from Antonio So. The amount represents the checks signed by the debtors in exchange for foodstuffs delivered by So. When they failed to pay, So filed a civil case for collection before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Ronquillo and his co-debtors negotiated with So, who agreed to reduce the debt to P110,000, with the payment to be done in two installments of P55,000 each. The compromise agreement stated that the debtors agreed to pay individually and jointly before June 1980 and that in case of failure to comply with the terms of the agreement, the innocent party will be entitled to an execution of the decision based on this compromise agreement and the defaulting party agrees and hold themselves to reimburse the innocent party for attorneys fees, execution fees and other fees related with the execution. So filed a motion for execution when the debtors failed to pay the first tranche in December 1979, but Ronquillo said they could not find So on the December 24, the last date for payment. Ronquillo and his co-debtor, Pilar Tan, later deposited half of the P55,000 with the clerk of court because So at first wanted the full amount paid, but So later withdrew the deposited amount. The lower court however issued a motion for execution against the two other co-debtors, for the remaining half of the initial payment. So moved for the execution of the order against all defendants, jointly and severally. Ronquillo opposed this, saying that the lower courts order did not declare the defendants liability to be solidary. The court however noted that only one-fourth of the debt had been paid, and ordered a writ of execution for the remaining P82,500. The sheriff issued a notice of sale for certain appliances and furnitures in Ronquillos residence to satisfy the debt. Ronquillo filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which was then denied. The issue was elevated to the Supreme Court, which noted that Ronquillo and his co-debtors individually and jointly agreed to pay the debt. Clearly then, by the express term of the compromise agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation individually and jointly. The term individually has the same meaning as collectively, separately, distinctively, respectively or severally. An agreement to be individually liable undoubtedly creates a several obligation, 14 and a several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation.

The obligation in the case at bar being described as individually and jointly, the same is therefore enforceable against one of the numerous obligors.

3.

Malayan Insurance v. CA

Petitioner cannot adopt the argument that the "arrest" caused by ordinary judicial process is not included in the covered risk simply because the F.C. & S. Clause under the Institute War Clauses can only be operative in case of hostilities or warlike operations on account of its heading "Institute War Clauses." This Court agrees with the Court of Appeals when it held that ". . . Although the F.C. & S. Clause may have originally been inserted in marine policies to protect against risks of war, (see generally G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty Section 2-9, at 71-73 [2d Ed. 1975]), its interpretation in recent years to include seizure or detention by civil authorities seems consistent with the general purposes of the clause, x x x"[5] In fact, petitioner itself averred that subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses included "arrest" even if it were not a result of hostilities or warlike operations.[6] In this regard, since what was also excluded in the deleted F.C. & S. Clause was "arrest" occasioned by ordinary judicial process, logically, such "arrest" would now become a covered risk under subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses, regardless of whether or not said "arrest" by civil authorities occurred in a state of war. Petitioner itself seems to be confused about the application of the F.C. & S. Clause as well as that of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo). It stated that "the F.C. & S. Clause was "originally incorporated in insurance policies to eliminate the risks of warlike operations". It also averred that the F.C. & S. Clause applies even if there be no war or warlike operations x x x"[7] In the same vein, it contended that subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) "pertained exclusively to warlike operations" and yet it also stated that "the deletion of the F.C. & S. Clause and the consequent incorporation of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) was to include "arrest, etc. even if it were not a result of hostilities or warlike operations."[8] This Court cannot help the impression that petitioner is overly straining its interpretation of the provisions of the policy in order to avoid being liable for private respondent's claim. This Court finds it pointless for petitioner to maintain its position that it only insures risks of "arrest" occasioned by executive or political acts of government which is interpreted as not referring to those caused by ordinary legal processes as contained in the "Perils" Clause; deletes the F.C. & S. Clause which excludes risks of arrest occasioned by executive or political acts of the government and naturally, also those caused by ordinary legal processes; and, thereafter incorporates subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses which now includes in the coverage risks of arrest due to executive or political acts of a government but then still excludes "arrests" occasioned by ordinary legal processes when subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of said Clauses should also have included "arrests" previously excluded from the coverage of the F.C. & S. Clause.

It has been held that a strained interpretation which is unnatural and forced, as to lead to an absurd conclusion or to render the policy nonsensical, should, by all means, be avoided.[9] Likewise, it must be borne in mind that such contracts are invariably prepared by the companies and must be accepted by the insured in the form in which they are written.[10] Any construction of a marine policy rendering it void should be avoided.[11] Such policies will, therefore, be construed strictly against the company in order to avoid a forfeiture, unless no other result is possible from the language used.[12] If a marine insurance company desires to limit or restrict the operation of the general provisions of its contract by special proviso, exception, or exemption, it should express such limitation in clear and unmistakable language.[13] Obviously, the deletion of the F.C. & S. Clause and the consequent incorporation of subsection 1.1 of Section 1 of the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) gave rise to ambiguity. If the risk of arrest occasioned by ordinary judicial process was expressly indicated as an exception in the subject policies, there would have been no controversy with respect to the interpretation of the subject clauses. Be that as it may, exceptions to the general coverage are construed most strongly against the company.[14] Even an express exception in a policy is to be construed against the underwriters by whom the policy is framed, and for whose benefit the exception is introduced.[15] An insurance contract should be so interpreted as to carry out the purpose for which the parties entered into the contract which is, to insure against risks of loss or damage to the goods. Such interpretation should result from the natural and reasonable meaning of language in the policy.[16] Where restrictive provisions are open to two interpretations, that which is most favorable to the insured is adopted.[17] Indemnity and liability insurance policies are construed in accordance with the general rule of resolving any ambiguity therein in favor of the insured, where the contract or policy is prepared by the insurer.[18] A contract of insurance, being a contract of adhesion, par excellence, any ambiguity therein should be resolved against the insurer; in other words, it should be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Limitations of liability should be regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to preclude the insurer from noncompliance with its obligations.[19] 4. PNB vs. Independent Planters

The appellant assails the order of dismissal, invoking its right of recourse against one, some or all of its solidary debtors under Article 1216 of the Civil Code ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

The sole issue thus raised is whether in an action for collection of a sum of money based on contract against all the solidary debtors, the death of one defendant deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case against the surviving defendants. It is now settled that the quoted Article 1216 grants the creditor the substantive right to seek satisfaction of his credit from one, some or all of his solidary debtors, as he deems fit or convenient for the protection of his interests; and if, after instituting a collection suit based on contract against some or all of them and, during its pendency, one of the defendants dies, the court retains jurisdiction to continue the proceedings and decide the case in respect of the surviving defendants. Thus in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Villarama et al., 107 Phil. 891 at 897, this Court ruled: Construing Section 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure from whence the aforequoted provision (Sec. 6, Rule 86) was taken, this Court held that where two persons are bound in solidum for the same debt and one of them dies, the whole indebtedness can be proved against the estate of the latter, the decedent's liability being absolute and primary; and if the claim is not presented within the time provided by the rules, the same will be barred as against the estate. It is evident from the foregoing that Section 6 of Rule 87 (now Rule 86) provides the procedure should the creditor desire to go against the deceased debtor, but there is certainly nothing in the said provision making compliance with such procedure a condition precedent before an ordinary action against the surviving solidary debtors, should the creditor choose to demand payment from the latter, could be entertained to the extent that failure to observe the same would deprive the court jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action against the surviving debtors. Upon the other hand, the Civil Code expressly allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. There is, therefore, nothing improper in the creditor's filing of an action against the surviving solidary debtors alone, instead of instituting a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor wherein his claim could be filed. Similarly, in PNB vs. Asuncion, 80 SCRA 321 at 323324, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Makasiar, reiterated the doctrine. A cursory perusal of Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court reveals that nothing therein prevents a creditor from proceeding against the surviving solidary debtors. Said provision merely sets up the procedure in enforcing collection in case a creditor chooses to pursue his claim against the estate of the deceased solidary, debtor. It is crystal clear that Article 1216 of the New Civil Code is the applicable provision in this matter. Said provision gives the creditor the right to 'proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.' The choice is undoubtedly

left to the solidary, creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. In case of the death of one of the solidary debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. It is not mandatory for him to have the case dismissed against the surviving debtors and file its claim in the estate of the deceased solidary debtor . . . As correctly argued by petitioner, if Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court were applied literally, Article 1216 of the New Civil Code would, in effect, be repealed since under the Rules of Court, petitioner has no choice but to proceed against the estate of Manuel Barredo only. Obviously, this provision diminishes the Bank's right under the New Civil, Code to proceed against any one, some or all of the solidary debtors. Such a construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well settled to require citation, that a substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural rule. Otherwise stared, Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the former being merely procedural, while the latter, substantive. 5. Bachrach vs. Espiritu

Appellants also alleged that on February 4, 1925, the defendant sold his rights in said trucks Nos. 77197 and 92744 to the intervenor, and that as the latter did not sign the mortgage deeds, such trucks cannot be considered as mortgaged. But the evidence shows that while the intervenor Rosario Espiritu did not sign the two mortgage deeds (Exhibits A and C), yet, together with the defendants Faustino Espiritu, he signed the two promissory notes (Exhibits B and D) secured by these two mortgages. All these instruments were executed at the same time, and when the trucks 77197 and 92744 were included in the mortgages, the intervenor Rosario Espiritu was aware of it and consented to such inclusion. These facts are supported by the testimony of Bachrach, manager of the plaintiff corporation, of Agustin Ramirez, who witnessed the execution of all these documents, and of Angel Hidalgo, who witnessed the execution of Exhibits B and D. We do not find the statement of the intervenor Rosario Espiritu that he did not sign promissory notes Exhibits B and C to be sufficient to overthrow this evidence. A comparison of his genuine signature on Exhibit AA with those appearing on promissory notes B and C, convinces us that the latter are his signatures. And such is our conclusion, notwithstanding the evidence presented to establish that on the date when Exhibits B appears to have been signed, that is July 25, 1925, the intervenor was in Batac, Ilocos Norte, many miles away from Manila. And the fact that on the 24th of said month of July, the plaintiff sent some truck accessory parts by rail to Ilocos for the intervenor does not necessarily prove that the latter could not have been in Manila on the 25th of that month. In view of his conclusion that the intervenor signed the promissory notes secured by trucks 77197 and 92744 and

consented to the mortgage of the same, it is immaterial whether he was or was not the exclusive owner thereof. It is finally contended that the 25 per cent penalty upon the debt, in addition to the interest of 12 per cent per annum, makes the contract usurious. Such a contention is not well founded. Article 1152 of the Civil Code permits the agreement upon a penalty apart from the interest. Should there be such an agreemnet, the penalty, as was held in the case of Lopez vs. Hernaez (32 Phil., 631), does not include the interest, and which may be demamded separetely. According to this, the penalty is not to be added to the interest for the determination of whether the interest exceeds the rate fixed by the law, since said rate was fixed only for the interest. But considering that the obligation was partly performed, and making use of the power given to the court by article 1154 of the Civil Code, this penalty is reduced to 10 per cent of the unpaid debt. 6. Robes-Francisco vs. CFI

Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. Under the foregoing provisions nominal damages are not intended for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. They are recoverable where some injury has been done the amount of which the evidence fails to show, the assessment of damages being left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. 8 It is true as petitioner claims that under American jurisprudence nominal damages by their very nature are small sums fixed by the court without regard to the extent of the harm done to the injured party. It is generally held that a nominal damage is a substantial claim, if based upon the violation of a legal right; in such case, the law presumes a damage, although actual or compensatory damages are not proven; in truth nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact, and are allowed, not as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted, but simply in recogniton of the existence of a technical injury. (Fouraker v. Kidd Springs Boating and Fishing Club, 65 S. W. 2d 796-797, citing 17 C.J. 720, and a number of authorities). 9 In the situation now before Us, We are of the view that the amount of P20,000.00 is excessive. The admitted fact that petitioner corporation failed to convey a transfer certificate of title to respondent Millan because the subdivision property was mortgaged to the GSIS does not in itself show that there was bad faith or fraud. Bad faith is not to be presumed. Moreover, there was the expectation of the vendor that arrangements were possible for the GSIS to make partial releases of the subdivision lots from the overall real estate mortgage. It was simply unfortunate that petitioner did not succeed in that regard. For that reason We cannot agree with respondent Millan Chat the P20,000.00 award may be considered in the nature of exemplary damages. In case of breach of contract, exemplary damages may be awarded if the guilty party acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. 13 Furthermore, exemplary or corrective damages are to be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, only if the injured party has shown that he is entitled to recover moral, temperate or compensatory damages." Here, respondent Millan did not submit below any evidence to prove that she suffered actual or compensatory damages. 14 7. Pamintuan vs. CA

Petitioner contends that the deed of absolute sale executed between the parties stipulates that should the vendor fail to issue the transfer certificate of title within six months from the date of full payment, it shall refund to the vendee the total amount paid for with interest at the rate of 4% per annum, hence, the vendee is bound by the terms of the provision and cannot recover more than what is agreed upon. Presumably, petitioner in invoking Article 1226 of the Civil Code which provides that in obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary. The foregoing argument of petitioner is totally devoid of merit. We would agree with petitioner if the clause in question were to be considered as a penal clause. Nevertheless, for very obvious reasons, said clause does not convey any penalty, for even without it, pursuant to Article 2209 of the Civil Code, the vendee would be entitled to recover the amount paid by her with legal rate of interest which is even more than the 4% provided for in the clause. 7-A It is therefore inconceivable that the aforecited provision in the deed of sale is a penal clause which will preclude an award of damages to the vendee Millan. In fact the clause is so worded as to work to the advantage of petitioner corporation. Unfortunately, the vendee, now private respondent, submitted her case below without presenting evidence on the actual damages suffered by her as a result of the nonperformance of petitioner's obligation under the deed of sale. Nonetheless, the facts show that the right of the vendee to acquire title to the lot bought by her was violated by petitioner and this entitles her at the very least to nominal damages. The pertinent provisions of our Civil Code follow: Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

Pamintuan relies on the rule that a penalty and liquidated damages are the same (Lambert vs. Fox 26 Phil. 588); that "in obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of non-compliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary " (1st

sentence of Art. 1226, Civil Code) and, it is argued, there is no such stipulation to the contrary in this case and that "liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof" (Art. 2226, Civil Code). We hold that appellant's contention cannot be sustained because the second sentence of article 1226 itself provides that I nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor ... is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation". "Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations" (Art. 1171, Civil Code). "In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for an damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation" (Ibid, art. 2201). The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Pamintuan was guilty of fraud because he did not make a complete delivery of the plastic sheetings and he overpriced the same. That factual finding is conclusive upon this Court. There is no justification for the Civil Code to make an apparent distinction between penalty and liquidated damages because the settled rule is that there is no difference between penalty and liquidated damages insofar as legal results are concerned and that either may be recovered without the necessity of proving actual damages and both may be reduced when proper (Arts. 1229, 2216 and 2227, Civil Code. See observations of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, cited in 4 Tolentino's Civil Code, p. 251). The penalty clause is strictly penal or cumulative in character and does not partake of the nature of liquidated damages (pena sustitutiva) when the parties agree "que el acreedor podra pedir, en el supuesto incumplimiento o mero retardo de la obligacion principal, ademas de la pena, los danos y perjuicios. Se habla en este caso de pena cumulativa, a differencia de aquellos otros ordinarios, en que la pena es sustitutiva de la reparacion ordinaria." (Ibid, Castan Tobenas, p. 130). After a conscientious consideration of the facts of the case, as found by Court of Appeals and the trial court, and after reflecting on the/tenor of the stipulation for liquidated damages herein, the true nature of which is not easy to categorize, we further hold that justice would be adequately done in this case by allowing Yu Ping Kun Co., Inc. to recover only the actual damages proven and not to award to it the stipulated liquidated damages of ten thousand pesos for any breach of the contract. The proven damages supersede the stipulated liquidated damages. This view finds support in the opinion of Manresa (whose comments were the bases of the new matter found in article 1226, not found in article 1152 of the old Civil Code) that in case of fraud the difference between the proven damages and the stipulated penalty may be recovered (Vol. 8, part. 1, Codigo Civil, 5th Ed., 1950, p. 483). Hence, the damages recoverable by the firm would amount to ninety thousand five hundred fifty-nine pesos and twenty-eight centavos (P90,559.28), with six percent interest a year from the filing of the complaint.