King Mau Wu, Plaintiff-Appelee vs. Francisco Sycip, Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-5897, April 23, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: King Mau Wu, Plaintiff-Appelee vs. Francisco Sycip, Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-5897, April 23, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal Volume XIX (Issue No.6) June 30, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Jurisdiction -- Philippines
Rights
Abstract: [This is an action to collect P59,082.92, together with lawful interests from 14 October 1947, the date of the written demand for payment, and costs. The claim arises out of a shipment of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion sold by the plaintiff, as agent of the defendant to Jas. Maxwell Fassett, who in turn assigned it to Fortrade Corporation. ]
Fulltext: It is true, as respondent De Leon ugues, that the consent or pardon of either spouse constitutes a bar to a criminal prosecution for adultery and concubinage, but, as the Solicitor General observes, said crimes are not thereby legalizeci, the result being merely that prosecution in such cases would not lie. The contention that the affidavit is only a unilateral declaration of facts is of no momf'nt, since it undoubtedly enabled respondPnt De Leon to nttain his purpose of winning over Regina S. Balinon with some 1!cgr~e of perIt is likewise insisted that the acts imputed to respondent D1:i Leon had no relation with his prMessional duties and therdore cannot Eerve as a basis for suspc11sion or disbarment under seetion 25 of Rule 127. It should be remembered, however, that a member of the bal' may be removed or suspended from office as a lawyer on irround other than those enumerated by said provision Un re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 5ti7). l\forcover, we can even stute that !'espondent DP. Leon was able to prepare the affidavit in questiou bf'cause he is a l::wyer, and has rendered professional serv\cp to himself as a client. Ile smely employed his knowledge of the law a.nd skill as an attorne~· tn his advantage. fManalo v. Gan, Adm. Case No. 72, May lS, lfl53. l With reforence to respcndent Velayo, there is no question that he did nothing except to affix his signature to the affidavit in question as a notary public. While, as contended by his counsel, the duty of n notary public is p!·incip2.lly to ascerl::iin the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the deela.ration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him at least to guard against having any_ thlng to do with illqrnl or immoral arrangement. In the pre>sent case respondent Velayo was somewhat negligent in just affixing his signature to the 2.ffidavit, although his fault is mitigated by the fact that he had relied on the good faith of his co.rt.>spondent. Wherefore, we he>reby decree the suspension from the practice of law of respondent Celestino T\L De Leon for three year11 from the date of the promnlg:ition rif this decision. Respondent Justri T. Velnyo is hereby merely reprimanded. So ordered. Pablo, Ben9:1ni, Padilla, Mu·11lcmayor, Reyes, Jugo, BuuliBta A n9elo and Labrador, J.J., concur. III King Mau Wn, Plaintiff-Appe/lee vs. Francisco Sycip, Defend. cr.t-A ppellant, G. R. No. L-5897, April 23, 1954, P•JJilla, J.: PLEADING AND PHACTICE; ACTION BY A NON-RESIDENT PLAINTIFF AGAINST A RESIDENT DEFENDANT. - Where in a contract uf agency it is contended that ir.!\Smuch as the contract was executed in New York, the Court of First Instance of Manila ha.s no jurisdiction over the case, the contention is without merit bec.'.luse a non-resident may sue a resident in the co~rts of this cr.untry where Jefendant may b..: summoned and his property leviahle upon '!xecution in case of a favornble, final and e:xecutory judgmer.t. <MarshallWells Co. vs. Henry W. Elser & Co., 46 Phil. 70; Western Equipment and Supply Co. vs. Reyes, 51 Phil. 115.) I. C. Jlfonsod for appellant. J. A. lVolfsun and P. P. Gallardo for appellee. DECISION PADILLA, J .: This is an actier. to collect P59,082.92, togeth:!r with lawful interests frem 14 October 1947, the date of the written demand for payment, and costs. The claim mises out of a shipment of 1,000 ions of coconut oil emulsion gc,Jd by the plaintiff, M agent of the defendant. to Jas. Maxwell Fassett, who in turn assigned it to Fortrade Corporation. Under an agency agreement set forth in a letter dated 7 November 1946 in New York addressed to the defendant and accepted by the latter on the 22nd day of the same month, the plaintiff was made the exclusive agent of the defendant in the sale ?f Philippine coconut oil and its derivatives outside the Philippines anci was to he paid 2-1/2% on the total actual sale price of sales obtained through hii:; 1:ifforts anQ. in addition thereto 50% of the difference between the authorized sale price and the act.ual sale price. After trial where the depositions of the plaintiff and of Jas. l\faxwell Fassett and several" letters in connection therewith were introduced and the testimony of the defendant wa:. heard, the Court rendered judgment as prayed for in the complaint. A motion for reconsideration wa.s denied. A motion for n1:iw trial was filed, supported by the defendant's affidavit, based on newly disc.overed evidence which consists of a duplicate original of a letter dated 16 October 1946 covering the sale of 1,000 tons of coconut oil soap emulsion signed by Jas. Maxwell Fassett to the defendant; the Jetter of credit No. 20122 of the Chemical Bank & Trust Company in favor of Jas. Maxwell Fassett assign~d by the latter to the defendant; and Jetter dated 16 December 1946 by the Fortrade Corporatic.r. to Jas. Maxwell Fassett whereby the corporativn placed a firm order of 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil soap emulsion and Jas. Maxwell Fassett accepted it on 24 December 1946, all of which documents, according to the defendant, could not be produced at the trial, despite the use of reasonable diligence, and if produced they would alter the 1·esult of the controversy. The motion for new trial was denied. The defendant is appealing from said judgment. Both parties arc agreed that the only transaction or sale n•ade by the plaintiff, as agent of the defendant, wa& that of 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion f .o. b. in Manila, Philippines, to J as. Maxwell Fassett, in whose favor letter of eredit No. 20122 of the Chemical Dank & Trust Company for a sum not to exceed $400,000 was established and who assigned to Fortrade Corporation his right to the 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion an<:l to the defendant the letter of credit referred to for a sum not to , exceed $400,000. The plaintiff claims that for that sale he is entitled under the agency contract dated 7 November 1946 and accepted by the defendant on 22 November of the same year to a commission of 2-1/2% on the total actual sale price of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion, part of which has already been paid by the defendant, there being only a balance of $3,794.!14 for commission due a~d unpaid on the last shipment of 379.494 tons and W% of the difference be>tween the authorized sale price of $350 per ton and the actual selling price of $400 per ton, which a.mounts to $25,000 due and unpaid. and $746. 52 for interest from 14 October 1947, the date of the written demand. The defendant on the other hand, contends that the transaction for the si.i.le of 1,0oo metric tons of coconut oil emulsion was n~t covered by the agency contract of 22 November 1946 because it was agreed upon on 16 October 1946; that it was en independent and sepa.rate transaction for which the plaintiff has bee~ duly cc mpensated. The contention is not borne out by the evidence. 'I'he plaintiff and his witness depose that there were several drafts of documents or letters prepared by Jas. l\faxwell Fassett preparatory or kading to the exeeution of the agency agreement of 7 November 1946, which was accepted by the defendant on 22 Nove1~ ber 1946, and that the letter, on which the defendz..nt bases his contention that the transaction on the 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil e>mulsion was not covered by the agency agreement, was one of those letters. That is believable. The letter upon which defendant relies for his defense does not stipulate on the commission to bC' paid to thl' plaintiff as agent, and yet. if he paid the pla!ntiff a 2-1/2% commission on the first three coconut oil emulsion shipments, there is no reaoon why he should not pay him the saml' commisi;ion on the last shipment am,ounting to $3,794.94. There can be no doubt that the sale of 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion was not a separate and independent contract June 30, 1954 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 273 from that of the agency agreement of 7 November and accepted on 22 November 194G by the ddendant, because in a letter dated 2 January 1947 2.<idressed to the plaintiff, refening to the transaction 'lf 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion, the defendant saysx x x I am doing cvel'ything possible to fulfill these 1,000 tons of emulsion, and until such time that we completed this order I do not feel it very sensible on my part to accept more orders. I want to prove to Forlrade, yourself and other 1>eople that we delive1 · our goods. Regarding your commission, it is understood to be 2-1/ 2% of all prices quoted by me plus 50-50 c ;n o\•er price. (Schedule B.) In another letter dated I G January 1947 to the plaintiff, speakinir of t he same transaction, the defendant. saysAs pel' our understanding when I was in the States tlui overprice is subject to any increase in the cost of production. I am not t rying to make things difficult for you and I ·shall give your 2-1/2% commission plus our overprice provided you can give me substantial order in ordel" for me to amortize my loss on this_ first deal. Unless such could be :1nanged I shall remit to you for the present your commission upon collection from the bank. (Schedule C.) · In a telegram sent by the defendant to the plaintiff the> former saysx x x YOUR MONEY PENDING STOP UNDERSTAND YOU AUTHORIZED SOME LOCAL ATTORNEYS AND MY RELATIVES TO INTEHVENF. YOUR BEHALF. (~chedule D.l The defendant's claim that th~ agreement for the sale of 1,000 metric tons of coconut oil emulsion w::.s agreed upon in a document, referring to the letter of 16 Octuber 1946, is again <lisprovcd by his letter dated 2 December 194G to Ft'rhade Corpor1tion where he says: The purpose of this letter is to confirm in final form the oral agreement which we have heretofore reached, as between ourselves, during the course of various conven;ntions between us and our respective representatives up•.n the subject matter of this lettn. It is understood that I nm to sell to you, and you · are to purchase from me, one thousand 0,000) tons of cor.f'nut oil S02.p emulsion at a price of four hunclr<:d dollars ($400.) per metric ton, i.e., 2,204.G pounds, F . 0. B. shipboard, 1\tanila, P.1. (Exhibit S, Special. Pndel'scoring sup11lied.) 'rhe contention that as the ccntract was executed in New York, the Court of First Instance of Manila has no jurisdiction over this case, i:::z without merit, because a non-resident may sue a resident in the courts of this c<>untry (I) where the defendant may be summoned and his property lcviable upon execution in case of a favorable, final and cxecutory judgment. It is a JlCrsonal action for the collection of a sum of money which the courts of first instance h>lve jurisdiction to t.ry a nd decide. There is no conflict of laws involved in the case, because it is only a question of enforcing an obligation created by or arising from contract; and unless the enforcement of the contract be against public policy of the forum, it must be enforced. The plaintiff is entitled to collect M,589.88 for commission and P50,000 for one. half of the overprice, or a total of P57,589.88, lawful interests thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint, and costs in both instances. As thus modified the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs aga..ins the appellant. (l) Manha1J.Wel11 Co. v1. Henry W. El~r & Co •• ~6 Phil. 10; Weatern Equip. ment and Supply Co. v1. R"JU, 51 Phil. l U. Paras, Pablo, Beng:::on, Montmnayor, Reyes, Jugo, BautisM A t19elo, and Concepcio11, JJ., concur. IV T he SJu:ll Comv<rn·u of P.l., Ltd., Plai11liff-Ap11rllant, vs. E. E . V(u1o, as Municipal Treasurer oi the Municip(!Jity of Cordova, Provine.: of Cebu, 1Jefct1tlnnt. A1i11ellee, G. R. No. L~6093, Fcbruaty 24, 1954, Padilfo J. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ACTION FOR HEFUND OF MUNICIPAL TAXES; REAL PAHTY IN INTEREST. - In an action for refund of municipal taxes claimed to have been paid ,and collected under an illegal ordinance, the real party in interest iii not the municipal treasurer but the municipality concerned that is empowered to sue and be sued. C. D. Jolmston and A. P. Dean for appellant. Provincial Fiseut Jose C. Borromeo and Assista.nt ProvinciQl F isrn.I An.mi11.~ V. i111friabao for UJ.lpcllee. DECI S ION PADILLA, J.: The Municipal Council of Cordova, province of Cebu, a.tlopte<l the following ordinances: No. IO, $Hies of 194G, which imposes an annual tax of !"150 on occupation or the exercise of the priYilege of installation manage!'; No, 9, sel"ies of 1947, which imposes an annual tax of P40 for local deposits in drums of combustible and inflammable materials and an annual tax of !"200 for tin can factories; and No. 11, sel'ies of 1948, which imposes an annual tax of !"150 on tin can facto1 ies having a maximum annual output capacity of 30,000 tin cans. The Shell Company of P.I. Ltd., a foreign corporntion, filed suit for the refund of the taxes paid by it, on the ground that the ordinances impnsing such taxes are 11/tra vircs. The defendant denies that they are so. The controversy was submitted for judgment upon stipulation of facts which reads as follows: Come now the parties in the above-entitled case Cy their undersigned attorneys and hereby agi·ee to the following· stipulation of facts: 1. That the parties admit the allegations contained in Paragraph l of the Amended Complaint referring to residence, personality, :rnd capacity of the pa11ies except the fact that E. E. Vai10 is now replaced by F. A. Corbo as Municipal Treasurer of Cordova, Cebu; 2. That the parties admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. Official Receipts Nos. A-1280606, A-:m~V742, A-3'7h0852, and A. 21030388 are herein marked as Exhibits A, ll, C, and D, 1 ·espectiwly, for the plaintiff; 3. That the parties admit that payments made> under Eichibits ll, C, and D were all 101der protest and plaintiff admits that Exhibit A was ?Jot. paid under protest; 4. That the parties admit that Official Receipt No. A-1280606 for !"40.00 and Official Receipt No. A-3760742 for P200.00 were collected by the defendant by virtue of Ordinance No. 9, <Secs. E-4 and E-6, respectively) under Resolution No. "31, Series of 1947, enacted December 15, 1!)47, approved by the Provincial Board of Cebu in its Resolution No. 644, Series of 1948. Copy of said Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1947 is herein marked as Exhibit "E" for ihe pla..intiff, a nd as Exhibit "1" for the defendant; 274 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL June 30, 1954
pages: 273-274