Case Digest (G.R. No. 141258)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 141258)
Facts:
Tomasa Sarmiento v. Sps. Luis & Rose Sun‑Cabrido and Maria Lourdes Sun, G.R. No. 141258, April 09, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tomasa Sarmiento alleges that in April 1994 she was asked by Dra. Virginia Lao to have a pair of diamond earrings reset into two gold rings; petitioner sent an intermediary, Tita Payag, who delivered the earrings to Dingdings Jewelry Shop, owned and managed by respondents Luis and Rose Cabrido (private respondents). Petitioner furnished 12 grams of gold and the shop accepted the job for P400. One earring, earlier appraised at .33 carat, was brought to the shop; Maria Lourdes (Marilou) Sun examined it, attempted to dismount the diamond herself, then asked their goldsmith, Zenon Santos, to do so. Santos removed the gem using pliers and the diamond broke. Petitioner purchased a replacement for P30,000 and demanded respondents replace the diamond; they refused.
After barangay conciliation failed, petitioner filed suit for damages on June 28, 1994 with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Tagbilaran City (Civil Case No. 2339). The MTCC ruled for petitioner and awarded actual and other damages. On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tagbilaran City, Branch 3, reversed the MTCC and absolved respondents of liability. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC in a decision promulgated November 26, 1999. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (challenging the CA’s findings that Santos was not an employee of respondents and that the contract did not include dismounting), raising two assigned errors and arguing respondents should be liable for damages arising from the breakage.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that Zenon Santos was not an employee of respondent Rose Sun‑Cabrido (and thus that respondents were not vicariously liable for the breakage)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the RTC that there existed no agreement between petitioner and respondents that respondents would answer for any liability arising from the dismounting of the diamonds (i.e., was dismounting part of the contracted service)?
- If respondents are liable, may moral damages be awarded for the breakage arising from the performance of the contract?
- If respondents are liable, are attorneys’ fees recoverable?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)