Case Digest (G.R. No. 20586)
Facts:
Santiago Navarro et al. v. Felix Mallari et al., G.R. No. 20586, October 13, 1923, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. Johnson, Malcolm, Avancena, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.The action was brought in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga by Santiago Navarro, Sabas Magtoto, and Victorino Calara, as trustees (mandatarios) of the inhabitants of Barrio San Vicente, Macabebe, Pampanga, against Felix Mallari (principal) and Leon Tolentino and Ignacio Tolentino (sureties), to compel performance of a written contract for construction of a chapel or, alternatively, to recover P12,000 paid on the contract plus P4,000 as stipulated damages for noncompliance. Pedro Mercado, one of the four original trustees who refused to join the suit, was impleaded as a defendant.
In 1920 the barrio raised P16,000 for the chapel and placed the fund with the four trustees to let a contract. Although Jose Mallari, a clerk in the Bureau of Public Works, represented himself as willing and competent to do the work, government rules precluded his undertaking the job in his official name; consequently the contract (Exhibit A), dated June 11, 1920, was executed in the name of Felix Mallari. The contract provided construction according to specified plans and materials (iron roof of first-class, best cement, woods of bulaon, dungon, guijo), fixed the price at P16,000 with P12,000 paid at execution and P4,000 payable upon satisfactory completion and acceptance, and stipulated P4,000 as indemnity in case of noncompliance. Concurrently Leon and Ignacio Tolentino executed a collateral guaranty (Exhibit C) binding them solidarily for performance.
At trial before Judge Guillermo B. Guevara the defendants admitted execution of Exhibit A but contended Felix was a mere figurehead and that Jose Mallari actually performed the work; they counterclaimed for the unpaid P4,000 balance and damages for alleged nonpayment. Plaintiffs produced the expert report of Engineer Emilio Maria de Moreta (Exhibit E), who found the plans and workmanship defective and the building dangerously lacking in proper foundation and technical competence. Photographs (Exhibit I) corroborated the structural defects.
The trial court concluded the chapel had been built according to contract and awarded the defendants P4,000 on their counterclaim. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On review the Supreme Court found the work was not performed in conformity with the specifications and fundamental principles of building art, that plaintiffs were entitled to th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the defendants perform the construction contract in conformity with its plans and specifications?
- Are the plaintiffs entitled both to recover the P12,000 already paid (or to retain the unpaid balance of P4,000) and to recover the stipulated damages of P4,000, or does an offset or elect...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)