Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The defendant Antonio Vazquez answered the It results from the foregoing that the judgment
complaint, denying having entered into the appealed from must be modified by reducing the
contract mentioned in the first cause of action in his amount of the recovery to eleven hundred pesos
own individual and personal capacity, either solely (1,100), with legal interest from November 8, 1916.
or together with his codefendant Fernando As thus modified the judgment is affirmed, without
Busuego, and alleging that the agreement for the any special pronouncement as to costs of this
purchase of 4,000 cavans of palay and the instance. So ordered.
payment of the price of P8,400 were made by the
plaintiff with and to the Natividad-Vasquez Sabani US v. Barias
Development Co., Inc., a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the Philippines, of Facts:
which the defendant Antonio Vazquez was the In 1904, Congress, through a law (Act No. 1136),
acting manager at the time the transaction took authorized the Collector of Customs to regulate the
place. business of lighterage. Lighterage is a business
involving the shipping of goods by use of lighters or
ISSUE: cascos (small ships/boats). The said law also
provides that the Collector may promulgate such
Whether the plaintiff entered into the rules to implement Act No. 1136. Further, Act No.
contract with the defendant Antonio Vazquez in his 1136 provides that in case a fine is to be imposed, it
personal capacity or as manager of the Natividad- should not exceed one hundred dollars. Pursuant to
this, the Collector promulgated Circular No. 397.
Vazquez Sabani Development Co., Inc.
Meanwhile, Aniceto Barrias was caught navigating
the Pasig River using a lighter which is manually
powered by bamboo poles (sagwan). Such is a
RULING: violation of Circular No. 397 because under said
Circular, only steam powered ships should be
The trial court found him guilty of negligence allowed to navigate the Pasig River. However, in
the information against Barrias, it was alleged that
in the performance of the contract and held him
the imposable penalty against him should be a fine
personally liable on that account. not exceeding P500.00 at the discretion of the court
– this was pursuant to Circular No. 397 which
We think both the trial court and the Court of provides:
Appeals erred in law in so holding. They have For the violation of any part of the foregoing
manifestly failed to distinguish a contractual from regulations, the persons offending shall be liable to
a fine of not less than P5 and not more than P500, in broken piece of jewelry. Marilou, on the other hand,
the discretion of the court. admitted knowing Payag to avail their services and
Barrias now challenged the validity of such recalled that when Santos broke the jewelry, Payag
provision of the Circular as it is entirely different from turned to her for reimbursement thinking she was
the penal provision of Act. No. 1136 which only the owner. Santos also recalled that Payag
provided a penalty of not exceeding $100.00 (Note requested him to dismount what appeared to him
at that time the peso-dollar exchange was more or as sapphire and that the stone accidentally broke.
less equal). He denied being an employee of the Jewelry shop.
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether or not the penal provision in the Circular is
valid. 1. WoN dismounting of the diamond from its original
setting was part of the obligation
HELD: 2. WoN respondents are liable for damages and
moral damages.
No. The Commissioner cannot impose a different
range of penalty different from that specified by RULING:
Congress. If the Collector is allowed to do so, then
in effect, it is as if he is being delegated the power Yes. The contemporaneous and subsequent acts of
to legislate penalties. One of the settled maxims in the parties reveal the scope of obligation assumed
constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon by the jewelry shop to reset the pair of earrings.
the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated Marilou expressed no reservation regarding the
by that department to anybody or authority. Where dismounting of the diamonds. She could have
the sovereign power of the State has located the instructed Payag to have the diamonds
authority, there it must remain; only by the dismounted first, but instead, she readily accepted
constitutional agency alone the laws must be the job order and charged P400. After the new
made until the constitution itself is changed. The settings were completed, she called petitioner to
power to whose judgment, wisdom, and patriotism bring the diamond earrings to be reset. She
this high prerogative has been entrusted can not examined one of them and went on to dismount
relieve itself of the responsibility by choosing other the diamond from the original setting. After failing
agencies upon which the power shall be to do the same, she delegated it to the goldsmith.
developed, nor can its substitutes the judgment, Having acted the way she did, she cannot deny
wisdom, and patriotism and of any other body for that the dismounting was part of the shop’s
those to which alone the people have seen fit to obligation to reset the pair of earrings.
confide this sovereign trust.
This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that Yes. Those who, in the performance of their
such a delegated power constitutes not only a right obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay
but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
instrumentality of his own judgment acting thereof, are liable for damages. Santos acted
immediately upon the matter of legislation and not negligently in dismounting the diamond from its
through the intervening mind of another. The original setting. Instead of using a miniature wire,
Collector cannot exercise a power exclusively which is the practice of the trade, he used a pair of
lodged in Congress. Hence, Barrias should be pliers. Moral damages may also be awarded in a
penalized in accordance to the penalty being breach of contract when there is proof that
imposed by Act No. 1136. In this case, the Supreme defendant acted in bad faith, or was guilty of gross
Court determined that the proper fine is $25.00. negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton
disregard of his contractual obligation.
ISSUE:
RULING: