Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents Benjamin J. Molina Jeus B. Santos Ledesma, Puno, Guytingco, Antonio & Associates

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-16480. January 31, 1962.]
ARTEMIO KATIGBAK , petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL

EVANGELISTA and V. K. LUNDBERG , respondents.
Benjamin J. Molina for petitioner.

Jeus B. Santos for respondent V. K. Lundberg.
Ledesma, Puno, Guytingco, Antonio & Associates for respondent Daniel
Evangelista.
DECISION
PAREDES , J : p
This case arose from an agreed purchase and sale of a Double Drum Carco
Tractor Winch. Artemio Katigbak upon reading an advertisement for the sale of the
winch placed by V. K. Lundberg, owner and operator of the International Tractor and
Equipment Co., Ltd., went to see Lundberg and inspected the equipment. The price
quoted was P12,000.00. Desiring a reduction of the price, Katigbak was referred to
Daniel Evangelista, the owner. After the meeting, it was agreed that Katigbak was to
purchase the winch for P12,000.00, payable at P5,000.00 upon delivery and the balance
of P7,000.00 within 60 days. The condition of the sale was that the winch would be
delivered in good condition. Katigbak was apprised that the winch needed some
repairs, which could be done in the shop of Lundberg. It was then stipulated that the
amount necessary for the repairs will be advanced by Katigbak but deductible from the
initial payment of P5,000.00. The repairs were undertaken and the total of P2,029.85
for spare parts was advanced by Katigbak for the purpose. For one reason or another,
the sale was not consummated and Katigbak sued Evangelista, Lundberg and the
latter's company, for the refund of such amount.
Lundberg and Evangelista led separate Answers to the complaint, the former
alleging non-liability for the amount since the same (obligation for refund) was purely a
personal account between defendant Evangelista and plaintiff Katigbak. Lundberg
asked P500.00 by way of actual and compensatory damages and P5,000.00 as moral
damages, claiming that the ling of the suit was malicious; that there is a misjoinder
because he is a stranger in the case, not being a party to the agreement between
Evangelista and Katigbak.
Evangelista, on his part, claimed that while there was an agreement between him
and Katigbak for the purchase and sale of the winch and that Katigbak advanced the
payment for the spare parts, he (Katigbak) refused to comply with his contract to
purchase the same; that as a result of such refusal he (Evangelista) was forced to sell
the same to a third person for only P10,000.00, thus incurring a loss of P2,000.00,
which amount Katigbak should be ordered to pay, plus moral damages of P5,000.00
and P700.00 for attorney's fees.
The lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads —
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants Daniel
Evangelista and V. K. Lundberg to pay plaintiff the sum of P2,029.85, with legal
interest thereon from the ling of the complaint until fully paid, plus the sum of
P300.00 as attorney's fees, and the costs."
The Court of Appeals, on September 5, 1959, reversed the judgment in the

following manner: —
"Notwithstanding the breach of contract committed by him, we may
concede appellee's right to a refund of the sum of P2,029.85, but equally
undeniable is appellant Evangelista's right to recover from him his loss of
P2,000.00, which is the difference between the contract price for the sale of the
winch between him and appellee and the actual price for which it was sold after
the latter had refused to carry out his agreement. As held in the above-cited case
of Hanlon, if the purchaser fails to take delivery and pay the purchase price of the
subject matter of the contract, the vendor, without the need of rst rescinding the
contract judicially, is entitled to resell the same, and if he is obliged to sell it for
less than the contract price, the buyer is liable for the difference. The loss, which
is the subject matter of Evangelista's main counterclaim, should therefore be set
off against the sum claimed by appellee, which would leave in favor of the latter a
balance of P29.85.
Considering our nding that it was appellee who committed a breach of

contract, it follows that the present action was unjusti ed and he must be held
liable to appellant Evangelista for attorney's fees in the sum of P700.00.
Lastly, inasmuch as, according to the evidence appellant Lundberg was

merely an agent of his co-appellant, it is obvious that he cannot be held liable to
appellee in connection with the refund of the sum advanced by the latter.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby modi ed by dismissing the

complaint as to V. K. Lundberg; by reducing the judgment in favor of appellee to
the sum of P29.85, and by sentencing him, in turn, to pay appellant Evangelista
the sum of P700.00 as attorney's fees.
Plaintiff-appellee Katigbak brought the matter to this Court on appeal by

certiorari. In his petition he claims that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the
doctrine enunciated in the Hanlon v. Hausserman case (40 Phil. 796, 815-816), and
failed to apply the law relative to rescission of contracts. Other issues raised are
strictly factual and will only be mentioned here for reference.
We quote from the Hanlon case:
". . . . In the present case the contract between Hanlon and the mining
company was executory as to both parties, and the obligation of the company to
deliver the shares could not arise until Hanlon should pay or tender payment of
the money. The situation is similar to that which arises every day in business
transactions in which the purchaser of goods upon an executory contract fails to
take delivery and pay the purchase price. The vendor in such case is entitled to
resell the goods. If he is obliged to sell for less than the contract price, he holds
the buyer for the difference; if he sells for as much as or more than the contract
price, the breach of contract by the original buyer is damnum absque injuria. But it
has never been held that there is any need of an action of rescission to authorize
the vendor, who is still in possession, to dispose of the property where the buyer
fails to pay the price and take delivery. . . ." (40 Phil. 815)

The facts of the case under consideration are identical to those of the Hanlon
case. The herein petitioner failed to take delivery of the winch, subject matter of the
contract and such failure or breach was, according to the Court of Appeals, attributable
to him, a fact which We are bound to accept under existing jurisprudence. The right to
resell the equipment, therefore, cannot be disputed. It was also found by the Court of
Appeals that in the subsequent sale of the winch to a third party, the vendor thereof lost
P2,000.00, the sale having been only for P10,000.00, instead of P12,000.00 as agreed
upon, said difference to be borne by the supposed vendee who failed to take delivery
and/or pay the price.
Of course, petitioner tried to draw a distinction between the Hanlon case and his
case. The slight differences in the facts noted by petitioner are not, however, to our
mode of thinking, su cient to take away the case at bar from the application of the
doctrine enunciated in the Hanlon case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, and the decision appealed from is
affirmed in all respects with costs against petitioner.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and
De Leon, JJ., concur.
Padilla and Dizon, JJ., took no part.

Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents Benjamin J. Molina Jeus B. Santos Ledesma, Puno, Guytingco, Antonio & Associates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents Benjamin J. Molina Jeus B. Santos Ledesma, Puno, Guytingco, Antonio & Associates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner vs. vs. Respondents Benjamin J. Molina Jeus B. Santos Ledesma, Puno, Guytingco, Antonio & Associates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16480. January 31, 1962.]

ARTEMIO KATIGBAK , petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL

Benjamin J. Molina for petitioner.

The Court of Appeals, on September 5, 1959, reversed the judgment in the

Considering our nding that it was appellee who committed a breach of

Lastly, inasmuch as, according to the evidence appellant Lundberg was

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby modi ed by dismissing the

Plaintiff-appellee Katigbak brought the matter to this Court on appeal by

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like