Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    SOCONY v. Cho Siong

    Uploaded by

    KristineSherikaChy
    This document discusses two court cases involving Standard Oil Co. of New York and various defendants. The court modified the appealed judgment in case one, ordering one defendant to pay a certain amount but relieving the other defendant of liability. In case two, the court affirmed the appealed judgment, finding that no damages were proven from a brief attachment against one plaintiff's lands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SOCONY v. Cho Siong

    Uploaded by

    KristineSherikaChy
    45 views3 pages
    This document discusses two court cases involving Standard Oil Co. of New York and various defendants. The court modified the appealed judgment in case one, ordering one defendant to pay a certain amount but relieving the other defendant of liability. In case two, the court affirmed the appealed judgment, finding that no damages were proven from a brief attachment against one plaintiff's lands.

    Original Description:

    SOCONY v. Cho Siong.doc

    Original Title

    SOCONY v. Cho Siong.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses two court cases involving Standard Oil Co. of New York and various defendants. The court modified the appealed judgment in case one, ordering one defendant to pay a certain amount but relieving the other defendant of liability. In case two, the court affirmed the appealed judgment, finding that no damages were proven from a brief attachment against one plaintiff's lands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    45 views3 pages

    SOCONY v. Cho Siong

    Uploaded by

    KristineSherikaChy
    This document discusses two court cases involving Standard Oil Co. of New York and various defendants. The court modified the appealed judgment in case one, ordering one defendant to pay a certain amount but relieving the other defendant of liability. In case two, the court affirmed the appealed judgment, finding that no damages were proven from a brief attachment against one plaintiff's lands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    EN BANC
    G.R. No. L-!"## $ece%be& !' (!#
    STAN$AR$ O)L CO. O* NE+ ,OR-' plaintiff-appellant'
    .s.
    C/O S)ONG' ET AL.' 0efen0ants-appellees.
    ------------------------------------
    G.R. No. L-!1"2 $ece%be& !' (!#
    ONG GUAN CAN' plaintiff-appellant'
    .s.
    STAN$AR$ O)L CO. O* NE+ ,OR-' 0efen0ant-appellee.
    Po3ell an0 /ill fo& appellant in case No. !"##' an0 fo& appellee in case No. !1"2.
    Pa0illa' T&enas an0 Ma4alona fo& appellees in case No. !"## an0 fo& appellant in case
    No. !1"2.

    A5ANCE6A' C. 7.8
    These t3o case' !"## an0 !1"2 3e&e 9ointl: p&osecute0 in the cou&t belo3 an0 onl:
    one 9u04%ent 3as &en0e&e0 in both.
    )n case !"##' the plaintiff' Stan0a&0 Oil Co. of Ne3 ,o&;' sue0 the 0efen0ants' Cho
    Sion4 an0 On4 Guan Can' fo& the a%ount of P'(!1.<' 3ith inte&est' plus P1"= as
    atto&ne:>s fees. The t&ial cou&t o&0e&e0 the 0efen0ants Cho Sion4 an0 On4 Guan Can to
    pa: the plaintiff the a%ount of P?<.<?' 3ith le4al inte&est f&o% the 0ate 3hen the
    co%plaint 3as file0 until full pa:%ent' plus P== b: 3a: of atto&ne:>s fees@ an0
    0efen0ant Cho Sion4 to pa: the plaintiff the su% of P'(2.!?' 3ith le4al inte&est the&eon
    f&o% the 0ate 3hen the co%plaint 3as file0 until full: pai0' plus P"== as atto&ne:>s
    fees.(a3phi(.net
    On 7anua&: 1' (!?' the plaintiff an0 0efen0ant Cho Sion4 ente&e0 into a cont&act
    3he&eb: Cho Sion4 obli4ate0 hi%self to sell as a4ent' plaintiff>s pet&oleu% p&o0ucts. /e
    4ua&antee0 the fulfil%ent of his obli4ation b: 4i.in4 a pe&sonal bon0 in the su% of
    P2'===' subsc&ibe0 b: On4 Guan Can' an0 3ith the su% of P('=== in cash 3hich he
    0eli.e&e0 to the plaintiff' 3ith the &i4ht to appl: it to the pa:%ent of an: a%ount in 3hich
    he %i4ht beco%e in0ebte0. Cho Sion4 also boun0 hi%self to pa: such atto&ne:>s fees'
    costs' an0 othe& eApenses' as %i4ht be occasione0 the plaintiff shoul0 it be un0e& the
    necessit: of filin4 suit fo& the &eco.e&: of an: a%ount to 3hich it %i4ht be entitle0
    pu&suant to this cont&act in a su% eBual to (= pe& cent of the a%ount o3e0.
    B: .i&tue of this cont&act' Cho Sion4 &ecei.e0 f&o% the plaintiff pet&oleu% to the .alue of
    P(<'(2?.1!' an0 %a0e 4oo0 to sai0 plaintiff the total a%ount of P(<'=1.22' thus lea.in4
    a balance of P?<.<? in fa.o& of the plaintiff an0 a4ainst the 0efen0ant Cho Sion4.
    But it appea&s that on the sa%e 0a: C7anua&: 1' (!?D' 3hen the plaintiff an0 0efen0ant
    Cho Sion4 ente&e0 into the cont&act to a4enc: an0 3hen the othe& 0efen0ant' On4 Guan
    Can subsc&ibe0 the P2'=== bon0' the 0efen0ant Cho Sion4 si4ne0 an inst&u%ent in fa.o&
    of the plaintiff in 3hich he assu%e0 &esponsibilit: fo& all the accounts that %i4ht be
    o3in4 to the plaintiff b: the fo&%e& a4ent' Ton4 -uan' an0 fo& all 4oo0s the latte& %i4ht
    ha.e in his possession at the ti%e 3hen the a4enc: 3as t&ansfe&&e0 to Cho Sion4.
    Acco&0in4 to the plaintiff>s e.i0ence' the a%ount then o3e0 b: Ton4 -uan 3as
    P2'(2.!?. A00in4 P?<.<? to this a%ount' 3e ha.e the total 0ebt of P2'(!1.<. $e0uctin4
    f&o% this the P('=== in cash 3hich Cho Sion4 0eposite0 3ith the plaintiff to be applie0
    upon his liabilities' it lea.es a 0ebit balance of P'(!1.< 3hich is the a%ount clai%e0 in
    the co%plaint.
    Acco&0in4 to the abo.e' eAclu0in4 the 0ebt of the fo&%e& a4ent Ton4 -uan' the onl:
    balance a4ainst the 0efen0ant Cho Sion4 on his o3n cont&act of a4enc: 3ith the plaintiff
    is the su% of P?<.<?. Since the plaintiff has the P('=== belon4in4 to the 0efen0ant Cho
    Sion4' 3hich %a: be applie0 to the pa:%ent of the su%s o3e0 b: the latte&' it follo3s
    that' as to Cho Sion4>s a4enc:' he has incu&&e0 no liabili:' fo& out of the P('=== 0eposite0
    3ith the plaintiff he still has P!2"."< in his fa.o&. ConseBuentl:' On4 Guan Can' as a
    su&et: fo& those 0ebts 3hich Cho Sion4 %i4ht incu& upon the cont&act of a4enc:' 0oes not
    ans3e& fo& an:thin4' the p&incipal not ha.in4 incu&&e0 an: liabilit:. )t is plain un0e& the
    te&%s of the bon0 si4ne0 b: On4 Guan Can that he 0i0 not ans3e& fo& Cho Sion4' sa.e
    fo& the latte&>s act b: .i&tue of the cont&act of a4enc:. /e cannot be hel0 liable fo& the 0ebt
    of a4ent Ton4 -uan 3hich Cho Sion4 assu%e0 b: .i&tue of anothe& cont&act of 3hich
    sai0 On4 Guan Can 3as not e.en a3a&e. A cont&act of su&et:ship is to be st&ictl:
    inte&p&ete0 an0 is not to be eAten0e0 be:on0 its te&%s.
    The a%ount of P1"= fo& atto&ne:>s fees an0 cou&t costs' 3hich Cho Sion4 boun0 hi%self
    to pa: to the plaintiff' 3as a4&ee0 upon in the cont&act of a4enc:' an0 as Cho Sion4 0i0
    not incu& an: liabilit: 3ith &espect to this cont&act he cannot be o&0e&e0 to pa: this su%.
    )n the inst&u%ent b: 3hich Cho Sion4 assu%e0 the 0ebt of the fo&%e& a4ent' Ton4 -uan'
    no stipulation 3as %a0e as to atto&ne:>s fees an0 as it is on this cont&act that Cho Sion4
    faile0 to pe&fo&% his obli4aion it is also clea& that he is not liable fo& an: a%ount as
    atto&ne:>s fees.
    )n .ie3 of the fo&e4oin4' the appeale0 9u04%ent is %o0ifie0 as to case No. !"## an0 the
    0efen0ant Cho Sion4 is o&0e&e0 to pa: the plaintiff the a%ount of P'(!1.< onl:' the
    othe& 0efen0ant On4 Guan Can bein4 &elie.e0 f&o% all liabilit:.
    )n case No. !1"2 On4 Guan Can clai%s the su% of P("'=== f&o% the Stan0a&0 Oil Co.'
    of Ne3 ,o&;. )n the fo&%e& case No. !"##' the Stan0a&0 Oil Co.' of Ne3 ,o&; secu&e0 a
    p&eli%ina&: attach%et a4ainst On4 Guan Can' 3hich 3as le.ie0 on so%e of his lan0s.
    This attach%ent consiste0 si%pl: in the annotation the&eof in the t&ansfe& ce&tificate of
    tile ente&e0 on No.e%be& (1' (!1' 3hich attach%ent 3as 0issol.e0 an0 the annotation
    cancelle0 on the (!th of the sa%e %onth. The attach%ent' the&efo&e' onl: laste0 t3o 0a:s.
    The a%ount of P("'=== 3hich On4 Guan Can clai%s of the Stan0a&0 Oil Co.' of Ne3
    ,o&; is the a%ount of 0a%a4es he alle4es 3e&e' cause0 hi% b: this attach%ent.
    The t&ial cou&t fin0in4 that no 0a%a4e p&o.en to ha.e been suffe&e0 b: On4 Guan Can on
    account of sai0 attach%ent' absol.e0 the Stan0a&0 Oil Co.' of Ne3 ,o&; f&o% this clai%
    in case No. !1"2.
    +ithout consi0e&in4 the othe& Buestion &aise0 in this case' an0 acceptin4 the t&ial cou&t>s
    conclusions that no 0a%a4e 3as occasione0 On4 Guan Can b: sai0 attach%ent 3hich
    onl: laste0 t3o 0a:s' the 9u04%ent appeale0 f&o% is affi&%e0' 3ith costs a4ainst the
    appellant. So o&0e&e0.
    7ohnson' St&eet' Malcol%' 5illa%o&' Ost&an0' Ro%ual0eE an0 5illa-Real' 77.' concu&.

    You might also like