TITLE II:

CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 1
ARTICLES 1314-1315

Joy C. Gamboa
CHAPTER 1 Liability for damages of a
1314 Third Person inducing to
violate contracts.

Consensual Contracts; when

1315 perfected
ARTICLE 1314.
Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party.

ARTICLE 1314
 REQUISITES

Existence of a valid contract;

Knowledge on the part of the third

person of the existence of the
contract; and

Interference by the third person

without legal justification or
excuse
EXAMPLE
■ S agreed to sell his parcel of land to B for 1M pesos. S sells
the land to C instead, because of the inducement of D.
■ In this case, B can sue D for damages. However, the
liability of D for damages cannot be more than that of S for
the latter’s violation of his contract. To hold D liable for
damages in excess of those that can be recovered against S
would be unjust.
■ At most, D would be solidarily liable with S.

Note:
■ The source of the obligation or liability of D will be based
on the theory of quasi delict. (Art. 1157[5])
EXAMPLE
■ O, a very popular movie star, was under contract with P Movie
Productions to star exclusively in the latter’s films for two(2)
years.
■ O was prohibited by the contract to star in any film produced by
another producer. X Film Co., induced O to break her contract
with P by giving her twice her salary.
■ P sued X for damages. X contended that it had a right to
compete for the services of O and that her contract with P was
in restraint of trade and a restriction on her freedom of contract.
■ Whose contention would you sustain?
ARTICLE
1315.
Contracts are perfected by mere consent,
and from that moment the parties are
bound not only to the fulfillment of what
has been expressly stipulated but also to
all the consequences which, according to
their nature, may be in keeping with good
faith, usage, and law.

ARTICLE 1315
CONSENSUALITY OF CONTRACTS

■ Salvador P. Malbarosa v. Court of Appeals

and S.E.A. Development Corp.,
GR No. 125761, April 30, 2003
Salvador P. Malbarosa v. Court of Appeals and S.E.A. Development
Corp.,
GR No. 125761, April 30, 2003

Facts:
From March 16, 1990 to April 3, 1990, petitioner had more than
two weeks to accept the offer of respondent. Although petitioner
avers that he had accepted the offer of respondent on March 28,
1990, however, he failed to transmit to respondent the copy of the
March 14, 1990 letter-offer bearing his conformity thereto.
Salvador P. Malbarosa v. Court of Appeals and S.E.A. Development
Corp.,
GR No. 125761, April 30, 2003

Held:
Unless and until the respondent received said copy of the letter-
offer, it cannot be argued that a contract had already been
perfected between petitioner and respondent.
A contract is perfected only from the time an acceptance of an
offer is made known to the offeror.
HOW CONTRACTS ARE PERFECTED?

■ Consensual contract – by mere consent

■ Real contract – perfected by delivery (e.g. depositum,
pledge, commodatum)
■ Formal or solemn contract – here a special form is
required for perfection
PERFECTION OF CONSENSUAL CONTRACTS
■ Consensual contracts are perfected from the
moment there is agreement (consent) on the
subject matter, and the cause or consideration.
■ Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. v. Reparations
Commission, GR NO. L-22768, Oct. 28, 1977
CONSEQUENCES OF PERFECTION
■ The parties are bound to the fulfillment of what has
been EXPRESSLY STIPULATED and compliance
thereof must be in GOOD FAITH.
■ The parties are ALSO bound to all the
CONSEQUENCES which, according to their nature,
may be in keeping with GOOD FAITH, USAGE, AND
LAW.
○ Vda. De Murciano v. Aud. Gen., et al. L-11744,
May 28, 1958
○ Vicente & Michael Lim v. CA & Liberty H. Luna
GR. No. 118347, October 24, 1196
THANK
YOU!