Case Digest (G.R. No. 58122)
Facts:
Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Fernando A. Pedrosa, G.R. No. 58122. December 29, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. (Mobil) and private respondent Fernando A. Pedrosa were parties to a Retail Dealer Agreement under which Pedrosa operated the Anne Marie Mobil Service Station as a Mobil dealer. On February 15, 1974 Pedrosa placed a prepaid product order for 8,000 liters premium and 2,000 liters regular gasoline, tendering a Prudential Bank cashier’s check for P4,610; the order form bore delivery due date “Today” (Feb. 15) and was marked “rush.”
Mobil’s internal processing shows the order was approved by its credit man on February 15 but was later reprocessed because of an announced price increase on February 18, 1974. Mobil recalled invoices for repricing and informed Pedrosa of a P2,880 price differential, which Pedrosa refused to pay. Mobil did not deliver the gasoline until March 5 (or March 6), charging the higher post‑increase prices and leaving an outstanding balance for the differential; Mobil contended there was no perfected sale on Feb. 15 and that the price at actual delivery controlled.
Pedrosa sued in CFI, Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q‑18580) for breach, alleging intentional delay to exact the price increase; the trial court (Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento) found Mobil guilty of deliberate delay, awarded P3,470 (unearned profits), P2,360 (loss of earnings), P25,000 exemplary damages, P50,000 moral damages, and P10,000 attorney’s fees (total P90,830), and dismissed Mobil’s counterclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto (decision penned by Justice Melo). Mobil filed a petition for review by certiorari to the Supreme Court contesting (among other things) that no perfected sale existed on Feb. 15 and that any delay was not deliberate.
The record before the courts included Mobil internal testimony explaining the repricing/recalled invoices, evidence of other dealers’ prepaid orders (some delivered on Saturdays contrary to Mobil’s asserted no‑Saturday deliveries), rebuttal invoices ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s findings and judgment?
- Did the Retail Dealer Agreement together with the prepaid product order create a perfected contract of sale on February 15, 1974 binding Mobil to deliver at the price then prevailing?
- Was Mobil’s delay in delivery deliberate to impose the price increase, and were the awards for unearned profits, loss of earnings, exemplary damages, moral damages, and attor...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)