I wish to digest the said case below, for legal research purposes of the
visitors of this blog. Thus:
Facts:
The petitioner Don Vicente Perez filed
before the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the court to
determine the amount due to him for the services he rendered in the Tabacalera
Company and that the defendant Eugenio Pomar be condemned to the payment of
damages amounting to $3,200, gold, together with the costs of suit. Prior to
this event, the petitioner was asked to be an English interpreter between the
defendant and the military authorities and that after that incident, the petitioner
continued to render his services to the respondent and that he obtained passes
and accompanied Pomar upon his journeys to some of the towns in Province of
Laguna( e.g conferences between the respondent and the colonel commanding the
local garrison, conferences with Captain Lemen in the town of Pilar, major in
command in Pagsanjan about the shipment of goods from Manila) and that the
plaintiff was assured by the respondent that in every rendered service to the
said company, there would be such payment. Thus, caused him to abandon his soap
business and suffered damages in the sum of $3,200. The defendant filed for
dismissal of the complaint denying the allegations stated by the petitioner. He
also stated that Perez borrowed from time to time money amounting to $175 for
his soap business, that Perez purposes in accompanying him is to extend his
business and mercantile relations, free
transportation, and that Perez had acted as interpreter of his own free will
without any offer of payment and therefore no legal relation between them
existed.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is oblige to pay the continued
service rendered by the petitioner.
Held:
Yes. The Court decision is
that the judgement should be rendered against Don Eugenio Pomar for the payment
to the plaintiff of the sum of 200 Mexican pesos.
Ratio:
The Court ruled out
that if there is a tacit and mutual
consent as to the rendition of the services, the defendant is still obliged to
pay such compensation to the petitioner even if there is no written contract
entered between the two parties on the basis of quasi-contract. When one party
knowingly receives something for nothing, the courts may impose a quasi
contract. Under a quasi contract, neither party is originally intended to
create an agreement. Instead, an arrangement is imposed by a judge to rectify
an occurrence of unjust enrichment. On the services rendered by the
petitioner in the province of Laguna, it
follows that there was a bilateral obligation on the part of both parties
because the defendant accepted the
benefit of the service rendered by the petitioner and that in turn the
petitioner expected him to pay his rendition of service. Provided in Article 22
of the Civil Code, Every person who through an act of performance by another,
or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the
expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to
him. The fact that the defendant consented to accept an interpreter's services
on various occasions, rendered in his behalf and not considered as free, it
is just that he should pay the
reasonable payment because it is well-known principle of law that no one should
be permitted to enrich himself to the damage of another.
No comments:
Post a Comment