Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4440)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4440)
Facts:
Bunge Corporation and Universal Commercial Agencies v. Elena Camenforte & Company, G.R. No. L-4440. August 29, 1952, the Supreme Court, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court; Paras, C.J., Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Labrador, JJ., concur; Bengzon, J., filed a concurring opinion.Plaintiffs Bunge Corporation (through Universal Commercial Agencies) sued defendants including Elena Camenforte & Company and others to recover damages for alleged non‑delivery of 500 long tons of Philippine copra under a written contract dated October 22, 1947. The contract called for shipment to the Pacific Coast of the U.S. (C & F San Francisco) during November or December 1947 at a stated U.S. dollar price less brokerage; the subject matter was described by weight and as “Philippine copra” without earmarking any particular lot or place of origin.
Plaintiffs alleged repeated demands and non‑delivery by the vendor; believing delivery would be made, plaintiffs had resold the copra to El Dorado Oil Works for future delivery and later sustained damages when they could not deliver. Defendants originally contested authority and identity issues (disputing whether Vicente Kho had authority and which Visayan Products Company was party), and Kho asserted a force majeure defense: he alleged the copra he had gathered and stored in a bodega at San Ramon, Samar was destroyed by a storm before shipment.
After trial the trial court found for plaintiffs and entered judgment against Elena Camenforte & Company for P79,744 with interest, ordering co‑defendants jointly and severally liable in event of insolvency. Defendants appealed, and on appeal they abandoned their earlier authority/identity defenses and confined their contention to the legal question whether the alleged destruction by storm constituted force majeure excusing nonperformance under the contract. The case reached the Supreme Court by appeal.
Issues:
- Did the destruction of the specific copra collected by defendants by reason of a storm constitute force majeure excusing their nonperformance under the contract?
- Were appellees entitled to damages based on their resale to El Dorado Oil Works or on the market price, and was the lower court’s award supportable despite the apparent one‑day discrepancy in contract dates?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)