Case Digest (G.R. No. 26948)
Facts:
In Silvestra Baron v. Pablo David (G.R. No. 26948) and Guillermo Baron v. Pablo David (G.R. No. 26949), decided October 8, 1927 by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, the plaintiffs–appellants, Aunt Silvestra and Uncle Guillermo Baron, sued their nephew Pablo David to recover the value of palay delivered to his rice mill in early 1920. Silvestra placed 1,012 cavans and 24 kilos of palay, including some taken over from Guillermo, while Guillermo delivered 1,865 cavans and 43 kilos. The defendant ran a well-patronized mill until a January 17, 1921 fire destroyed it. Plaintiffs alleged they sold the palay to David at the season’s highest price, later agreed at ₱8.40 per cavan for deferred payment. David contended the palay was merely deposited for milling and that any liability was extinguished by the fire. The trial court, finding that the palay was milled and sold before the fire, awarded Silvestra ₱5,238.51 and Guillermo ₱5,734.60, allowed David a ₱2,800 credit on GuillermoCase Digest (G.R. No. 26948)
Facts:
- Procedural History
- Two actions (G.R. Nos. 26948 & 26949) by Silvestra and Guillermo Baron vs. Pablo David to recover the value of palay delivered in 1920.
- Trial court awarded Silvestra P5,238.51 and Guillermo P5,734.60; both parties appealed. David’s counterclaim for P2,800 was allowed; his cross‐claim for damages was denied.
- Palay Transactions
- Silvestra (aunt) delivered 1,012 cavans + 24 kilos; Guillermo (uncle) delivered 1,865 cavans + 43 kilos to David’s rice mill in March–May 1920.
- Plaintiffs alleged sale at highest market price; David claimed bailment subject to withdrawal or future sale, arguing liability extinguished by the January 17, 1921 fire.
- Milling, Fire & Loss
- Plaintiffs’ palay was commingled with others, milled and rice sold before the fire. Fire destroyed the mill and approx. 360 cavans in the bodega, none traceable to the Barons.
- Trial court assumed the burned palay was partly plaintiffs’ and credited their claims accordingly.
- Price & Settlement Demand
- Plaintiffs claimed David promised P8.40/cavan if they waited until December; trial court found no such promise.
- Plaintiffs demanded settlement in early August 1920; trial court fixed P6.15/cavan as the market price on that date.
- Attachment Proceedings & Cross-claim
- Guillermo obtained attachment ( affidavit alleging fraud ) issued March 27, 1924; mill closed for 170 days; 24 third-party claims for 20,000 cavans of palay.
- David sought damages for lost profits and goodwill; trial court dismissed; David appealed this denial.
Issues:
- Must David account for the value of the palay milled and sold before the fire?
- Should plaintiffs’ recoveries be reduced by the burned palay and credits from subsequent transactions (Exs. 12–16)?
- What is the proper market price and valuation date for plaintiffs’ palay?
- Is Guillermo Baron liable for damages from the wrongful attachment, and how are they measured?
- Are exemplary or libel damages recoverable for a false affidavit used in a judicial proceeding?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)