Case Digest (G.R. No. 205966)
Facts:
BLOSSOM & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff and appellant, sued MANILA GAS CORPORATION, defendant and appellee, to recover damages alleged to have arisen from a ten‑year tar‑supply contract (original Sept. 10, 1918; modified Jan. 1, 1919) for breaches occurring after September, 1923. Plaintiff attached and relied on a prior judgment in Case No. 25352 awarding P26,119.08 for breach from July, 1920 to September, 1923, and alleged continued breaches after that date; the defendant denied liability and asserted res judicata. The Court of First Instance sustained the plea of res judicata in favor of the defendant, and the Supreme Court affirmed.Issues:
- Is the prior final judgment for damages rendered in Case No. 25352 a bar to Blossom & Company’s action for damages alleged to have accrued after September, 1923?
- Were the coal and water gas tar deliveries made after April 7, 1926, made unde
Case Digest (G.R. No. 205966)
Facts:
- Parties and contract
- Blossom & Company, Inc. was plaintiff and appellant.
- Manila Gas Corporation was defendant and appellee.
- The parties entered into an original contract dated September 10, 1918, modified January 1, 1919, to continue for ten years from January 1, 1919.
- The contract required monthly deliveries: specified minimum tons of water gas tar and coal gas tar, with options for plaintiff to take total output or fifty percent of coal gas tar, and a ninety-day notice provision to take the defendant’s entire coal tar output.
- Prior litigation and judgment
- Plaintiff alleged that about July 1920 the defendant “willfully and deliberately breached” the contract and “flatly refused to make any deliveries.”
- Plaintiff commenced suit known as case No. 25352 on November 23, 1923, seeking P124,848.70 and specific performance to compel deliveries.
- The Court of First Instance rendered judgment for plaintiff for P26,119.08 as damages for breach from July 1920 up to and including September 1923, with legal interest from November 23, 1923, and refused to order specific performance, leaving remedy for subsequent breaches.
- That judgment was later affirmed by this Court and was attached to the present complaint as Exhibit G.
- Present suit facts and post-judgment correspondence
- In the present action plaintiff sought to recover damages arising after September 1923 for alleged continued breaches during the remainder of the ten-year contract.
- The record admitted defendant made no deliveries from July 1920 to April 1926.
- Defendant made nine deliveries of minimum quantities between April 7, 1926, and January 5, 1927; plaintiff contended these were under the old contract.
- Plaintiff’s letter of March 26, 1926 requested to take minimum deliveries and asked what adjustment defendant would make for the period the contract was not complied with.
- Defendant’s letter of March 31, 1926 offered to furnish minimu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Preclusion and scope of prior judgment
- Whether the judgment in case No. 25352 for damages from July 1920 to September 1923 constitutes a bar to plaintiff’s present action for damages accruing after September 1923.
- Whether the prior courts’ refusal to order specific performance affects the preclusive effect of the prior judgment.
- Nature of the contract and dividability of claims
- Whether the contract was entire and indivisible or divisible so as to permit successive actions for breaches occurring after a prior judgment.
- Whether an unqualified refusal to deliver since July 1920 amounted to a total breach terminating plaintiff’s remedy to suits for damages only.
- Characte...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)