Case Digest (G.R. No. 32958)
Facts:
Blossom & Company, Inc. v. Manila Gas Corporation, G.R. No. 32958, November 08, 1930, the Supreme Court (Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa‑Real, JJ.), Johns, J., writing for the Court.The parties contracted initially on September 10, 1918, and the contract was modified effective January 1, 1919, to run ten years (until January 1, 1929). Under the contract the Manila Gas Corporation was to deliver specified monthly quantities of water‑gas tar and coal‑gas tar to Blossom & Company, Inc.. The complaint in the prior suit alleged that the defendant ceased deliveries about July 1920 and "flatly refused" further deliveries thereafter.
Because of that alleged cessation, Blossom commenced an action (Court of First Instance case No. 25352) to recover damages for breach. On November 23, 1923 the trial court rendered judgment for Blossom in the amount of P26,119.08 for damages "suffered ... from July, 1920, up to and including September, 1923," and declined to order specific performance (i.e., it refused to compel resumption of deliveries), leaving the plaintiff with a remedy in damages for any subsequent breaches. That judgment was later affirmed by this Court and a copy was attached to the later complaint as Exhibit G.
Thereafter Blossom brought the present action to recover damages alleged to have accrued after September, 1923, for breaches continuing for the remainder of the ten‑year term. The parties litigated whether the earlier judgment barred the later suit and whether deliveries (and charges) after April 7, 1926 were made under the old contract. The trial court, acting on a referee’s report, found that plaintiff was entitled to P2,219.60 for overcharges on deliveries (54 tons coal‑tar and 180 tons water‑gas tar) made after April 7, 1...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the prior final judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff for breach of the ten‑year contract (covering July 1920 to September 1923) operate as a bar (res judicata) to the present suit for damages allegedly sustained after September 1923?
- Were the deliveries and charges after April 7, 1926 made under the old contract so as to preclude recovery for overcharges, or may the plaintiff recover for overcha...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)