Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Insular Govt. Vs Frank

    Uploaded by

    JaniceBasagre
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the Government of the Philippine Islands in its suit against George I. Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year contract to work as a stenographer but left the job after less than a year. The lower court ordered Frank to pay back expenses and half-salary paid by the government per the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court found that amendments to laws referenced in the contract did not change the contract terms. It also held that Frank's capacity to enter the contract was determined by the law of Illinois where he entered it, not Philippines law, so his defense of being a minor was invalid.

    Copyright:

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

    Insular Govt. Vs Frank

    Uploaded by

    JaniceBasagre
    65 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the Government of the Philippine Islands in its suit against George I. Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year contract to work as a stenographer but left the job after less than a year. The lower court ordered Frank to pay back expenses and half-salary paid by the government per the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court found that amendments to laws referenced in the contract did not change the contract terms. It also held that Frank's capacity to enter the contract was determined by the law of Illinois where he entered it, not Philippines law, so his defense of being a minor was invalid.

    Original Title

    Insular Govt. vs Frank

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the Government of the Philippine Islands in its suit against George I. Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year contract to work as a stenographer but left the job after less than a year. The lower court ordered Frank to pay back expenses and half-salary paid by the government per the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court found that amendments to laws referenced in the contract did not change the contract terms. It also held that Frank's capacity to enter the contract was determined by the law of Illinois where he entered it, not Philippines law, so his defense of being a minor was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views3 pages

    Insular Govt. Vs Frank

    Uploaded by

    JaniceBasagre
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the Government of the Philippine Islands in its suit against George I. Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year contract to work as a stenographer but left the job after less than a year. The lower court ordered Frank to pay back expenses and half-salary paid by the government per the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court found that amendments to laws referenced in the contract did not change the contract terms. It also held that Frank's capacity to enter the contract was determined by the law of Illinois where he entered it, not Philippines law, so his defense of being a minor was invalid.

    Copyright:

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

    EN BANC

    [G. R. No. 2935. March 23, 1909.]


    THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GEORGE I. FRANK,Defendant-
    Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N
    JOHNSON, J.:
    Judgment was rendered in the lower court on the 5th day of September, 1905. the Defendantappealed.
    On the 12th day of October, 1905, the Appellant filed his printed bill of exceptions with the clerk of the
    Supreme Court. On the 5th day of December, 1905, the Appellant filed his brief with the clerk of the
    Supreme Court. On the 19th day of January, 1906, the Attorney-General filed his brief in said cause.
    Nothing further was done in said cause until on about the 30th day of January, 1909, when the
    respective parties were requested by this court to prosecute the appeal under penalty of having the
    same dismissed for failure so to do; whereupon the Appellant, by petition, had the cause placed upon
    the calendar and the same was heard on the 2d day of February, 1909.
    The facts from the record appear to be as follows: chanrobles virtualawlibrary
    First. That on or about the 17th day of April, 1903, in the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, in the
    United States, the Defendant, through a representative of the Insular Government of the Philippine
    Islands, entered into a contract for a period of two years with the Plaintiff, by which the Defendant was
    to receive a salary of 1,200 dollars per year as a stenographer in the service of the said Plaintiff, and in
    addition thereto was to be paid in advance the expenses incurred in traveling from the said city of
    Chicago to Manila, and one-half salary during said period of travel.
    Second. Said contract contained a provision that in case of a violation of its terms on the part of
    the Defendant, he should become liable to the Plaintiff for the amount expended by the Government by
    way of expenses incurred in traveling from Chicago to Manila and the one-half salary paid during such
    period.
    Third. The Defendant entered upon the performance of his contract upon the 30th day of April, 1903,
    and was paid half-salary from the date until June 4, 1903, the date of his arrival in the Philippine Islands.
    Fourth. That on the 11th day of February, 1904, the Defendant left the service of the Plaintiffand
    refused to make a further compliance with the terms of the contract.
    Fifth. On the 3d day of December, 1904, the Plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance
    of the city of Manila to recover from the Defendant the sum of 269. 23 dollars, which amount
    the Plaintiff claimed had been paid to the Defendant as expenses incurred in traveling from Chicago to
    Manila, and as half-salary for the period consumed in travel.
    Sixth. It was expressly agreed between the parties to said contract that Laws No. 80 and No. 224 should
    constitute a part of said contract.
    To the complaint of the Plaintiff the Defendant filed a general denial and a special defense, alleging in
    his special defense that the Government of the Philippine Islands had amended Laws No. 80 and No. 224
    and had thereby materially altered the said contract, and also that he was a minor at the time the
    contract was entered into and was therefore not responsible under the law.
    To the special defense of the Defendant the Plaintiff filed a demurrer, which demurrer the court
    sustained.
    Upon the issue thus presented, and after hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the
    lower court rendered a judgment against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintifffor the sum of 265.
    90 dollars. The lower court found that at the time the Defendant quit the service of the Plaintiff there
    was due him from the said Plaintiff the sum of 3. 33 dollars, leaving a balance due the Plaintiff in the
    sum of 265. 90 dollars. From this judgment theDefendant appealed and made the following assignments
    of error: chanrobles virtualawlibrary
    1. The court erred in sustaining Plaintiffs demurrer to Defendants special defenses.
    2. The court erred in rendering judgment against the Defendant on the facts.
    With reference to the above assignments of error, it may be said that the mere fact that the legislative
    department of the Government of the Philippine Islands had amended said Acts No. 80 and No. 224 by
    Acts No. 643 and No. 1040 did not have the effect of changing the terms of the contract made between
    the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The legislative department of the Government is expressly prohibited by
    section 5 of the Act of Congress of 1902 from altering or changing the terms of a contract. The right
    which the Defendant had acquired by virtue of Acts No. 80 and No. 224 had not been changed in any
    respect by the fact that said laws had been amended. These acts, constituting the terms of the contract,
    still constituted a part of said contract and were enforceable in favor of the Defendant.
    The Defendant alleged in his special defense that he was a minor and therefore the contract could not
    be enforced against him. The record discloses that, at the time the contract was entered into in the
    State of Illinois, he was an adult under the laws of that State and had full authority to contract.
    The Plaintiff [the Defendant] claims that, by reason of the fact that, under that laws of the Philippine
    Islands at the time the contract was made, made persons in said Islands did not reach their majority
    until they had attained the age of 23 years, he was not liable under said contract, contending that the
    laws of the Philippine Islands governed. It is not disputed upon the contrary the fact is admitted
    that at the time and place of the making of the contract in question the Defendant had full capacity to
    make the same. No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution,
    interpretation and validity of a contract are determined b the law of the place where the contract is
    made. (Scudder vs. Union National Bank, 91 U. S., 406.) cralaw Matters connected with its performance are
    regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as the
    bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place
    where the suit is brought. (Idem.) cralaw
    The Defendants claim that he was an adult when he left Chicago but was a minor when he arrived at
    Manila; that he was an adult a the time he made the contract but was a minor at the time
    the Plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract, more than a year later, is not tenable.
    Our conclusions with reference to the first above assignment of error are, therefore.
    First. That the amendments to Acts No. 80 and No. 224 in no way affected the terms of the contract in
    question; and
    Second. The Plaintiff [Defendant] being fully qualified to enter into the contract at the place and time
    the contract was made, he cannot plead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract is being
    enforced.
    We believe that the above conclusions also dispose of the second assignment of error.
    For the reasons above stated, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

    You might also like