Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    CD18 - Intl. Hotel Corp. v. Joaquin G.R. No. 158361

    Uploaded by

    Christy Canete
    case digest

    Copyright:

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

    CD18 - Intl. Hotel Corp. v. Joaquin G.R. No. 158361

    Uploaded by

    Christy Canete
    1 views1 page
    case digest

    Original Title

    CD18_ Intl. Hotel Corp. v. Joaquin G.R. No. 158361

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1 views1 page

    CD18 - Intl. Hotel Corp. v. Joaquin G.R. No. 158361

    Uploaded by

    Christy Canete
    case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    CAÑETE, Christy Mae, B.

    / Obligations and Contracts June 01, 2023

    Intl. Hotel Corp. v. Joaquin


    (G.R. No. 158361)
    Facts:
    On February 1, 1969, respondent Francisco B. Joaquin, Jr. submitted a proposal to
    the Board of Directors of the International Hotel Corporation (IHC) for him to render
    technical assistance in securing a foreign loan for the construction of a hotel, to be
    guaranteed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).The proposal
    encompassed nine phases, namely: (1) the preparation of a new project study; (2) the
    settlement of the unregistered mortgage prior to the submission of the application for
    guaranty for processing by DBP; (3) the preparation of papers necessary to the
    application for guaranty; (4) the securing of a foreign financier for the project; (5) the
    securing of the approval of the DBP Board of Governors; (6) the actual follow up of the
    application with DBP; (7) the overall coordination in implementing the projections of
    the project study; (8) the preparation of the staff for actual hotel operations; and (9)
    the actual hotel operations. Due to Joaquin’s failure to secure the needed loan, IHC,
    through its President Bautista, canceled the17,000 shares of stock previously issued
    to Joaquin and Suarez as payment for their services. The latter requested a
    reconsideration of the cancellation, but their request was rejected. Consequently,
    Joaquin and Suarez commenced this action for specific performance,
    annulment, damages against IHC and the members of its BOD. IHC lost.

    Issue:
    Whether the compensation awarded by the Court of Appeals was correct despite the
    non-fulfillment ofthe obligation of Joaquin and Suarez

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court held that Article 1186 and Article 1234 of the Civil Code cannot
    be the source of International Hotel Corporations obligation to pay the respondent.
    International Hotel Corporation arguments is meritorious since it cannot be held liable
    because it was Joaquin who recommended Barnes, and International Hotel
    Corporation negotiation with Barnes hadn’t been intentional or willfully intended to
    prevent Joaquin from his obligations. The Court held that Article 1186 of the Civil Code
    pertains to ‘’the constructive fulfillment which calls for 2 requisites namely; (a) intent of
    obligor to prevent fulfillment of condition and (b) actual prevention of the fulfillment.’’
    Moreover, Court stated that Article 1234 of the Civil Code applies only when, ‘’an
    obligor admits breaching the contract after faithfully performing all the material
    elements’’. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and
    AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on November 8,
    2002 in C.A.-G.R. No. 47094 subjects to the MODIFICATIONS that: (a)
    International Hotel Corporation is ordered to. pay Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr. and Rafael
    Suarez 100,000.00 each as compensation for their services, and (b) the award of
    20,000.00 as attorney's fees is deleted. No costs of suit.

    You might also like