Facts:

The case titled "The Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Myer Harris, Hugo Roseburg, and S. M. Berger" was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on November 28, 1917. The action was initiated by the Government against the defendants in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract. The contract in question was entered into between the Government and Myer Harris, with Hugo Roseburg and S. M. Berger acting as sureties. The agreement required Harris to supervise and manage the "Service Halls" in Baguio from February 1 to June 30, 1913. The Government was to provide the Service Halls with furniture, kitchen utensils, and other specified items, while Harris was responsible for the preservation of the building and its equipment, returning them in good condition, barring reasonable wear and tear.

Upon the expiration of the contract, the Government claimed that Harris failed to return various items listed...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff: The Government of the Philippine Islands.
   • Defendants: Myer Harris (contractor), Hugo Roseburg, and S. M. Berger (sureties).

2. Contract Terms:

   • Myer Harris agreed to superintend and conduct the "Service Halls" at Baguio for the Government from February 1 to June 30, 1913.
   • The Government agreed to furnish the Service Halls with furniture, kitchen utensils, tableware, linen, and other equipment as specified in the contract.
   • Harris was responsible for preserving the building and equipment, returning them in as good condition as when delivered, with "reasonable wear and tear excepted."
   • Harris was liable for the cost of any articles lost, stolen, or damaged.

3. Alleged Breach:

   • Upon expiration of the contract, Harris failed to return several articles of equipment listed in the inventory.
   • Harris offered to return fragments of broken items, but the Government rejected them.

4. Defendant's Counterclaim:

   • Harris alleged breaches by the Government, including:
     • Failure to provide distilled water and ice at a reasonable rate as promised.
     • Fewer boarders than estimated.
     • Shorter operational period than expected.

5. Evidence:

   • Harris claimed he took over the equipment hastily due to time constraints and relied on Government inventories.
   • The Government conducted a thorough inventory upon return of the equipment, revealing shortages.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Contract Interpretation:

   • The term "reasonable wear and tear" encompasses both deterioration from use and accidental damage incidental to reasonable use.
   • Liability for "lost, stolen, or damaged" items is qualified by the exception for reasonable wear and tear.

2. Burden of Proof:

   • The burden is on the contractor to prove that shortages or damages were due to reasonable wear and tear.

3. Government Representations:

   • Representations about external factors (e.g., availability of supplies, number of boarders, duration of the season) are not contractual guarantees unless explicitly stated as such.

4. Liability for Lost or Stolen Items:

   • The contractor is liable for items lost or stolen, as these are not covered by the "reasonable wear and tear" exception.